Lenora Zaka, a citizen of Albania, petitions for review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision to deny her application for asylum and withholding of removal.

We review legal conclusions de novo and findings of fact for substantial evidence. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). We will reverse the BIA’s asylum determination only if the evidence compels a different result. Girma v. INS, 283 F.3d 664, 669 (5th Cir. 2002); see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). The Attorney General may grant asylum to refugees. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). A refugee is a person who is outside of his or her country and is unable or unwilling to return “because of 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).

Based on the IJ’s findings, the BIA concluded that Zaka had not established past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution based on any of the statutorily enumerated grounds. After reviewing the record and the briefs, we conclude that the BIA’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and that the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. Zaka has failed to show that the Government’s position in her case is inconsistent with its position in another case pending before the Attorney General. If Zaka believed that she was entitled to asylum under proposed rules applicable to victims of domestic violence, she could have raised this issue prior to the filing of her reply brief. Rodriguez v. INS 9 F.3d 408, 414 n. 15 (5th Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.