UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ARTURAS BAKANOVAS, EDITA BAKANOVAS, and KAROLINA BAKANOVAS,

Petitioners,

v.

IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondents.

No. 00-9543

(Nos. A71 980 686, A71 980 687 &

A71 980 688)

(Petition for Review)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before HENRY, PORFILIO, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Petitioners bring this petition for review from the Bureau of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision denying their requests for asylum and withholding of deportation and dismissing their administrative appeal.1 Our jurisdiction over this appeal arises under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a).2 On review of petitioners' claims, we must uphold the BIA's decision if it finds support "'by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.'" Nazaraghaie v. INS, 102 F.3d 460, 463 (10th Cir. 1996) (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992)) (further quotation omitted).

Petitioners contend that the BIA erred in 1) concluding that petitioners failed to sustain their burden of proof to establish past persecution or a well-
founded fear of persecution should they return to Israel; 2) affirming the immigration judge's (IJ) factual finding that the house in which they were living was illegally built or occupied; and 3) concluding that there was no due process violation in connection with petitioner Edita Bakanovas' testimony at the hearing before the IJ resulting from alleged inadequacies in language interpretation. After careful review of the certified administrative record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that the BIA correctly decided this case. The agency's decision is affirmed and the petition for review is DENIED.

Entered for the Court

Robert H. Henry

Circuit Judge