Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02573/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02573-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alberto Gonzales
Respondent
Stevianus Siswanto
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2573

___________

Stevianus Siswanto, *

*

Petitioner, *

*

v. * Petition of Review from the Board

* of Immigration Appeals.

Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General *

of the United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: March 16, 2006

Filed: May 1, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

BENTON, Circuit Judge.

Stevianus Siswanto, an Indonesian citizen of Chinese ethnicity and Christian

faith, was admitted into the United States as a non-immigrant student with an F-1 visa.

The then-Immigration and Naturalization Service began removal proceedings.

Siswanto admitted that he was no longer a student and conceded removability.

However, he sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Immigration Judge (IJ) and Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied relief, finding that Siswanto did not meet his

burden of proof. Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, this court affirms.

Appellate Case: 05-2573 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/01/2006 Entry ID: 2039236
-2-

Siswanto asserts he suffered persecution in Indonesia because he is Christian

and of Chinese ancestry. Examples of persecution include an attack in 1996 on him

and his friends by students from a rival, largely Muslim public high school, and an

attack in 1999, where he was robbed, punched, threatened, and forced to charge

$2,000 on his credit card. In addition, Siswanto claims that he and his mother were

forced to bribe the police for protection and to stay out of jail. His church also has to

pay police for protection, due to fear that native Indonesians would destroy and burn

their building. Siswanto claims that he is easily distinguishable as a non-native

Indonesian because of his appearance and the fact that his religion is listed as

"Christian" on his identification card.

The BIA summarily affirmed the IJ's decision, which is treated as the final

agency decision reviewed by this Court. See Melecio-Saquil v. Ashcroft, 337 F.3d

983, 986 (8th Cir. 2003). This court reviews factual determinations for substantial

evidence, and the decision is upheld unless any reasonable fact-finder would be

compelled to conclude otherwise. See Suprun v. Gonzales, No. 05-2340, 2006 WL

860682, at *2 (8th Cir. April 5, 2006); Turay v. Ashcroft, 405 F.3d 663, 666, 668 (8th

Cir. 2005). The Attorney General has discretion to grant asylum to an alien who is

unwilling to return to his home country because of "(1) past persecution or (2) a wellfounded 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),

1158(b)(1). Persecution is "a threat to one's life or freedom on account of one of

[these] five protected grounds." Eta-Ndu v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 977, 983 (8th Cir.

2005), quoting Fisher v. INS, 291 F.3d 491, 497 (8th Cir. 2002). "The BIA has

adopted, and we have approved as reasonable, a definition of 'persecution' that

requires a harm to be 'inflicted either by the government of [a country] or by persons

or an organization that the government was unable or unwilling to control." Menjivar

v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 918, 921 (8th Cir. 2005), quoting Valioukevitch v. INS, 251

F.3d 747, 749 (8th Cir. 2001).

Appellate Case: 05-2573 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/01/2006 Entry ID: 2039236
1

Siswanto also emphasizes the robbery of his mother in 1997, reported to the

police without resolution. The IJ did not err in finding that this incident is not a case

of past persecution because it was a robbery typical of a lot of criminal activity in

Indonesia.

-3-

Although the IJ found Siswanto generally credible, he did not establish

sufficient past persecution in order to qualify for asylum. Most incidents he describes

– including the 1996 school attack – are not threats to his life or freedom, but rather

are harassment. See Kondakova v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 792, 797 (8th Cir. 2004)

("Slurs and harassment do not constitute persecution."), citing Fisher, 291 F.3d at

497. The only time he says his life was in danger was when he was punched and

robbed in 1999. The IJ concludes that this single incident "is not in and of itself

sufficient to trigger a finding of past persecution." Although some attackers made

anti-Chinese statements, this alone does not establish a nexus between the attack and

a protected ground. See Ming Ming Wijono v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 868, 873 (8th Cir.

2006), citing Lie v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530, 535-36 (3d Cir. 2005) (ethnic slurs made

during robberies of Chinese Christians in Indonesia were not sufficient to conclude

the intrusions were on account of ethnicity). As the IJ finds, the 1999 incident could

have been based on criminal intent, rather than ethnic or religious bias. See Wijono,

439 F.3d at 873. 

The harassment Siswanto experienced was sporadic and did not rise to the level

of persecution necessary to establish past persecution. See Setiadi v. Gonzales, 437

F.3d 710, 713 (8th Cir. 2006) ("Even minor beatings or limited detentions do not

usually rise to the level of past persecution."); Zakirov v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 541, 546

(8th Cir. 2004) ("Low-level intimidation and harassment alone do not rise to the level

of persecution."). In fact, his mother and brother continue to live in Indonesia without

incident and attend church there.1

 "The reasonableness of a fear of persecution is

diminished when family members remain in the native country unharmed, and the

applicant himself had not been singled out for abuse." Krasnopivtsev v. Ashcroft, 382

F.3d 832, 839 (8th Cir. 2004).

Appellate Case: 05-2573 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/01/2006 Entry ID: 2039236
-4-

To establish a well-founded fear of future persecution, the alien must show that

"he subjectively fears persecution, and that there is credible, direct, and specific

evidence that a reasonable person in the alien's position would fear persecution if

returned to the alien's native country." Mamana v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 966, 968 (8th

Cir. 2006). The subjective element may be proven by credible testimony that the

applicant genuinely fears persecution. Shoaira v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 837, 844 (8th

Cir. 2004), citing Ghasemimehr v. INS, 7 F.3d 1389, 1390 (8th Cir. 1993). Siswanto

claims he has also presented objective evidence that his race and religion make it more

likely than not that he will suffer persecution if returned to Indonesia. A petitioner

can meet the statutory burden of proving a clear probability of future persecution by

offering compelling evidence of past persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i).

This kind of evidence creates a presumption that removal to the country where

persecution was previously inflicted will result in a threat to the petitioner's life or

freedom when returned. Id. The government can rebut this presumption by

establishing a "fundamental change in circumstances such that the applicant's life

would not be threatened... upon removal to that country." Id. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(A).

Because Siswanto did not prove past persecution, he does not receive the presumption

of future persecution in this case. See Francois v. INS, 283 F.3d 926, 930 (8th Cir.

2002); see also 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1).

Even so, Siswanto contends that he has demonstrated future persecution by

showing a "

 Although Chinese Christians

living in Indonesia have experienced violence and discrimination in the past, the IJ

notes that racially motivated attacks against Chinese Indonesians have dropped

sharply since mid-1998 and "there is every indication that conditions have improved

substantially since then." See Wijono, 439 F.3d at 874 (attacks against Christian

Indonesians are perpetrated by groups of extremist Muslims, and persecution appears

Appellate Case: 05-2573 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/01/2006 Entry ID: 2039236
-5-

to be inflicted by fellow citizens and not the result of governmental inaction or

acquiescence). In making this determination, the IJ relies on the U.S. State

Department's 2003 Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Indonesia, which

reports a sharp decline in violence against Chinese Christians in Indonesia since the

1998 riots. See Perinpanathan v. INS, 310 F.3d 594, 599 n.1 (8th Cir. 2002); Meas

v. Aschroft, 363 F.3d 729, 730 (8th Cir. 2004) (State Department reports are

persuasive authority for determining whether asylum seeker has well-founded fear of

future persecution). Given these changed circumstances, Siswanto did not prove that

he will suffer persecution if returned to Indonesia. 

Additionally, Siswanto argues that he is eligible for withholding of removal.

Because Siswanto fails to establish eligibility for asylum, he cannot meet the standard

for withholding of removal. See Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975, 992 (8th Cir.

2004); Prokopenko v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 941, 944 (8th Cir. 2004).

Siswanto also seeks relief under Article 3 of the CAT. An alien is eligible for

relief under the CAT by proving "that it is more likely than not that he or she would

be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal." 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2).

Torture is defined as an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment intentionally

inflicted by or with the acquiescence of a person acting in an official capacity. Id. §

208.18(a)(1), (2). Review of a denial of relief under the CAT is "whether the

evidence was so compelling that a reasonable factfinder must have found the alien

entitled to relief." Sheikh v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 1077, 1082 (8th Cir. 2005), quoting

Ngure, 367 F.3d at 992.

Siswanto asserts that the IJ should have analyzed his request for relief under the

CAT independently of his asylum and withholding claims. However, independent

analysis is required only"when there is evidence that the alien might be tortured for

reasons unrelated to [the alien's] claim for asylum and withholding of removal."

Alemu v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 572, 576 (8th Cir. 2005); See Ibrahim v. Gonzales, 434

F.3d 1074, 1080 (8th Cir. 2006). Here, Siswanto relies on the same evidence to prove

Appellate Case: 05-2573 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/01/2006 Entry ID: 2039236
-6-

a likelihood of torture as invoked to prove a likelihood of persecution. Therefore, the

IJ's rejection of his claims for asylum and withholding of removal warrants denial of

relief under the CAT. See Madjakpor v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1040, 1046 (8th Cir.

2005). 

The judgment of the BIA is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2573 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/01/2006 Entry ID: 2039236