a reasonable person in her circumstances would fear persecution if returned to her native country. Gao v. Ashcroft, 299 F.3d 266, 272 (3d Cir.2002); Elnager v. INS, 930 F.2d 784, 786 (9th Cir. 1991). The applicant must show “a subjective fear of persecution that is supported by objective evidence that persecution is a reasonable possibility.” Abdulrahman v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 587, 592 (3d Cir.2003) (quoting Chang v. INS, 119 F.3d 1055, 1066 (3d Cir.1997)). Whether an applicant has demonstrated a well-founded fear of future persecution and qualifies for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under CAT, is generally a factual determination, which this court will review under the substantial evidence standard. Shardar v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 318, 323 (3d Cir.2004); Dia, 353 F.3d at 239 (<HOLDING>); Gao, 299 F.3d at 272; Abdille v. Ashcroft,
holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination under title vii was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record holding that if a reasonable fact finder could make a particular finding on the administrative record then the finding is supported by substantial evidence holding that a finding of fact is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole if it would have been possible for a reasonable jury to reach the boards conclusion holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record holding substantial evidence supported jury finding of abuse of process