UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

KAREL ADAM; IVONNE UMBOH; RONALDO ADAM, Petitioners,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., United States Attorney General, Respondent. No. 14-9508 (Petition for Review)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before KELLY , PORFILIO , and MATHESON , Circuit Judges.

Petitioners, Indonesian citizens and na tives, seek review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismi ssing their appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of Kare l Adam’s application for asyl um, restriction on removal, and relief under the Conven tion Against Torture (CAT). Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), we deny the petition.

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 a nd 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### August 15, 2014
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court- 2 - I. BACKGROUND Petitioners entered the United States in June 2000 as nonimmigrant visitors. Their authorization to remain expired in December 2000. In 200 3, Mr. Adam applied for asylum based on his political opinion and membership in a political opposition group – FKM-USA. The other Petitioners , his wife and son, are derivative applicants. 1 The Department of Homeland Secur ity denied the asylum request and placed the Petitioners in removal proceedings. The IJ explained a delay in the pro ceedings from 2003 to 2010: “Proceedings in this matter changed venue multiple times between Los Angeles and Denver until this Court denied further motions to cha nge venue and required the [Petitioners] to appear at a master calendar hearing.” Admin. R. at 124. At that hearing, Mr. Adam said he would file a new asylum applicat ion, which he did in November 2010. The new application alleged fear of persecution based on the Petitioners’ Christian religion. At the merits hearing in 2012, Mr. Adam disavowed his 2003 asylum application as inaccurate. He then testified as follows. Mr. Adam is a lifelong Seventh Day Adventist. He met and married his wife, Ivonne Umboh, during

1 Mr. Adam’s daughter, Thalia, was origin ally a derivative applicant. During the proceedings, however, she reached adult age and filed a separate application for asylum and restriction on removal. The cases were consolidat ed for the merits hearing. During the appeal to the BIA, Th alia moved to sever to allow her to pursue adjustment of status based on her marria ge to a United States citizen. The BIA granted the motion. Thalia is no l onger a party to these proceedings.- 3 - college. In 1998, when living in Jakart a, Mr. Adam decided to transfer their daughter, Thalia, from public school to a Seventh Day Adventist school so she could “learn more about [her] own religion,” id . at 191, and avoid c onflict over whether she could be excused from Saturday morning classes to particip ate in “religious activities,” id . at 192. According to Mr. Ad am, the public school headmaster suggested Thalia engage in religious ac tivities on Saturday afternoons. Mr. Adam rejected the suggestion and deci ded to transfer Thalia. In April 1998, an after-school clash o ccurred between students at the public and Seventh Day Adventist schools. Mr. Adam testified, “Every day I had to pick up my kids from school. When I was parking the car in front of the school I saw [the Seventh Day Adventist students] getting out [of] school . . . . [T]here were 50 other kids behind them . . . and they were all wearing [public school] uniforms.” Id . at 194. The public school students “started hitting the [Seventh Day Adventist] high school children.” Id

. Mr. Adam got his daughter into the car but could not leave before someone hit the rear window with a baseball bat. He also witnessed “a few kids who [got] beaten up.” Id . at 197. The police were ca lled and “came to disperse the crowd.” Id . at 238. That evening he learne d that two Seventh Day Adventist students were killed in the melee. Mr. Adam did not report the damage to his car to the authorities. Thalia stay ed home from school the follo wing week. “[B]ecause of the incident the Adventist school took a step to change the sche dule so they started- 4 - early and finished . . . early.” Id . at 195. A few months la ter, Mr. Adam moved his family from Jakarta to Mataram. Because there were no Seventh Day Ad ventist schools in Mataram, Mr. Adam enrolled Thalia in a Catho lic school. His family wo rshipped at a Seventh Day Adventist church without inte rference. Things were p eaceful until early 2000, when three men accosted Thalia on a bus. They spit on her a nd burned the symbol of a cross on her arm with a cigarette. Mr. Adam was away from home that day. His wife told him she did not take Thalia to the doctor because she was “afraid.” Id . at 205. Mr. Adam decided to treat the w ound at home and did not call the police or seek outside medical care. He did not k now the men who committe d the assault. He testified it would have been futile to file a police re port because “[b]ased on the history that had happened to other Chris tians and to my close friends the police [would] not do anything.” Id . at 249. 2 A few days later, eight Christian c hurches in Mataram were burned down, including the Seventh Day Adventist c hurch. Mr. Adam had no idea “who was behind all this stuff, but th e situation was very heated, especially becau se [several churches had also been burned down] in Jakarta.” Id . at 208. A few weeks later, Mr. Adam quit his job and the family moved b ack to Jakarta, where he spent the next three months looking for work and Thalia refused to return to school.

2 This testimony conflicts with Mr. Adam ’s earlier statemen t that police came and dispersed the crowd at the school incident.- 5 - Although still able to attend church, Mr . Adam and his fam ily left Indonesia for the United States. “I basically came to the United States . . . to live . . . temporarily until . . . my fa mily was feeling safe.” Id . at 214. Plans changed, however, when relatives in Indonesia warned Mr. Adam not to return because “the situation in Indonesia was getting worse,” id . at 215. He admitted, however, that none of his relatives, all of whom are Chri stians, have been harm ed or threatened. Still, he cited instances in Jakarta and Ja va, “[m]ost of them [not reported] by the media,” of Muslims attacking Christians. Id . at 243. Thalia testified to the same events he r father described, and confirmed the details. Like her father, sh e feared returning to Indonesi a because Christians are “not able to freely express . . . freedom [of] religion and the police are just standing by[,] just watching.” Id . at 275-76. The IJ denied relief. He found Mr. Adam and Tha lia credible and the 2003 asylum application not frivol ous. But he found Petitioners ineligible for asylum because the application was not filed within one year of their arrival in the United States and no changed or extraordinary ci rcumstances excused the untimely filing. He also concluded Pe titioners were not eligible for restriction on removal or CAT protection. The BIA dismissed the appeal. It agr eed with the IJ that the 2003 asylum application was untimely. It also agreed Petitioners are not entitled to restriction on removal or CAT protection.- 6 - II. DISCUSSION The BIA issued a single board member’s brief order, so we review it as the final order of removal but “m ay consult the IJ’s opinion to the extent that the BIA relied upon or incorporated it.” Sarr v. Gonzales , 474 F.3d 783, 79 0 (10th Cir. 2007). “In this circuit, the determination whether an alien has demonstrated persecution is a question of fact.” Ritonga v. Holder , 633 F.3d 971, 974 (10th Cir. 2011) (ellipses omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). The burden to obtain a reversal is steep because, “in reviewing the BIA’s fa ctual findings, we are bound by Congress’s directive that ‘adm inistrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelle d to conclude to the contrary.’” BarreraQuintero v. Holder , 699 F.3d 1239, 1244 (10th Ci r. 2012), quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4). We review the agen cy’s legal conclusions de novo. Tulengkey v. Gonzales , 425 F.3d 1277, 1280 ( 10th Cir. 2005). This appeal concerns only the denial of restriction on removal. 3 “To obtain restriction on removal, the al ien must demonstrate that [h is] ‘life or freedom would be threatened in [the propos ed country of removal] becau se of [his] race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.’” Tulengkey , 425 F.3d at 1280 (quoting 8 U. S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A)).

3 Petitioners do not appeal dismissal of their asylum request. They waived review of the denial of CAT protection by fa iling to raise this issue in their opening brief.- 7 - An alien may create a rebuttabl e presumption of eligibility for restriction on removal by either (1) demonstrating past persecution in the proposed country of removal on account of one of the protected grounds; or (2) showing that it is mo re likely than not that the alien would be subject to persecution on one of the specified grounds upon returning to the proposed country of removal. Sidabutar v. Gonzales , 503 F.3d 1116, 1123-24 (10t h Cir. 2007) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “Persecution is the inf liction of suffering or harm upon those who differ (in race, religion, or political opinion) in a way regarded as offensiv e, and must entail more than just restrictions or threats to life and liberty.” Ritonga , 633 F.3d at 975 (internal quotation marks omitted). “We do not look at each incident in isolation, but instead consider then colle ctively, because the cumulative effe cts of multiple incidents may constitute persecution.” Id

. A. Past Persecution As to past persecution, what Mr. Adam described in his testimony is regrettable and troubling, but our preceden t makes it difficult for Petitioners to prevail. Even when an alien “suffered re peated robberies and so me minor injuries,” we have upheld a finding of no past persecution. Sidabutar , 503 F.3d at 1124. Similarly, we have said “[an alien’s] de scriptions of . . . ri ots and . . . church burning[s] do not mandate relief.” Witjaksono v. Holder , 573 F.3d 968, 977 (10th Cir. 2009). Here, the IJ found, and the BI A agreed, that Mr. Adam did not show enough under applicable precedent that he was the victim of ha rm or suffering and therefore did not establish pa st persecution. Based on the record, our limited and- 8 - demanding standard of review, and bindin g precedent, we cannot conclude that any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to reach a c ontrary determination.
B. Future Persecution As to future persecution, an applican t can qualify for rest riction on removal by establishing that “it is mo re likely than not that he . . . would be persecuted on account of race, religion, na tionality, membership in a pa rticular social group, or political opinion upon removal to that country.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2); see also Witjaksono , 573 F.3d at 977 (same). An app licant must demonstrate a “clear probability of persecution.” Elzour v. Ashcroft , 378 F.3d 1143, 1149 (10th Cir. 2004). For a fear of future persecu tion to be well-founded, it must be both subjectively genuine and obj ectively reasonable.” Ritonga , 633 F.3d at 976. An applicant can establis h an objectively reasonable fear by showing (1) it is likely he or she would suffer persecution due to being part of a group that has suffered a pattern or practice of religious persecution, or (2) that he or she likely would be singled out for persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2). As to either (1) or (2), “the persecution must be comm itted by the government or forces the government is unwilling to control.” Neri-Garcia v. Holder , 696 F.3d 1003, 1009 (10th Cir. 2012) (int ernal quotation marks omitted). Mr. Adam’s application fails on this latter requirement, and we th erefore do not address (1) or (2). The IJ found, and the BIA agreed, that Mr . Adam did not establ ish that his fear was “objectively reasonable.” Under our strict standard of review, we conclude the- 9 - IJ reasonably found Mr. Ad am did not show acts committed by the Indonesian government or a group that the governme nt is unwilling or unable to control. Further, the evidence showed Mr. Adam and his family we re able to attend church until they left Indonesia, I ndonesia’s constituti on protects religious freedom, and his relatives in Indonesia have continued to attend a Seventh Day Adventist church without harm. This evidence counters Mr. Adam ’s alleged fear of future persecution.
See , Ritonga , 633 F.3d at 977. We cannot conc lude any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to reach a determination on fear of futu re persecution contrary to the IJ’s. 4 The petition for review is denied.

Entered for the Court

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. Circuit Judge

4 Petitioners urge this court to adopt the “disfavored group” analysis employed by the Ninth Circuit in Sael v. Ashcroft , 386 F.3d 922, 925-29 (9th Cir. 2004). But Petitioners failed to raise this issue with the BIA, and we therefore lack jurisdiction to consider it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (requiring administrative exhaustion as a jurisdictional prerequisite); see also Akinwunmi v. INS , 194 F.3d 1340, 1341 (10th Cir. 1999) (same).