Petitioner seeks review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her application for asylum, see 8 U.S.C. 1158(a), based upon the BIA's affirmance of the immigration judge's (IJ) determination that she did not qualify as a refugee as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A).3 Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 1105a, " '[w]e apply the substantial evidence standard to a review of the Board's factual determination of whether an alien is a refugee.' " Castaneda v. INS, 23 F.3d 1576, 1578 (10th Cir.1994)(quoting Nguyen v. INS, 991 F.2d 621, 625 (10th Cir.1993)).

In order to establish that she is a refugee eligible for asylum, petitioner bears the burden of proving either that she suffered past "persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A); see also, e.g., Kapcia v. INS, 944 F.2d 702, 706 (10th Cir.1991). In her petition for review, petitioner asserts that she established her status as a refugee by proving that she had suffered past persecution in her native Czechoslovakia as a result of the defections of her uncle and her sister. She contends that, because of the defections of her family members, government officials denied her educational and occupational opportunities and police officials harassed her and her family.

While "[e]ligibility for asylum can be based on the grounds of past persecution alone," Baka v. INS, 963 F.2d 1376, 1379 (10th Cir.1992), "[t]o establish such eligibility, an alien must show past persecution so severe that repatriation would be inhumane," id. Review of the administrative record convinces us that petitioner failed to establish such past persecution. See id. (allegations that petitioners were harassed by fellow workers because they were Catholics and because they were not Communist Party members, and allegations that they were ineligible for promotions and held less advantageous jobs because they refused to join Communist Party, not sufficient to establish past persecution necessary for asylum eligibility); Kapcia, 944 F.2d at 704, 708 (petitioner's allegations that, among other things, he was beaten and interrogated, his home was searched, he received poor work assignments, was denied bonuses, and was finally fired from his job were insufficient to establish "severe enough past persecution to warrant refugee status").

We, therefore, AFFIRM the BIA's denial of petitioner's application for asylum.