2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
12-10-2004 

# M ei P in g I e v

. Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-4288

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" M ei P in g I e v

. Att y Ge n U SA" (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 88. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/88NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 03-4288 MEI PING IE, Petitioner
v. JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTOR NEY G ENERA L OF THE U NITED STATES, Respondent
Petition for Revi ew of an Order of the United States Department of Justi ce Bo ard o f Imm igration Ap peals (BIA No. A79-309-103)
Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

November 29, 2004 Be for e: R EN DE LL , AL DI SE RT and M AG ILL *, Circu it Judges
.

(Fil ed: December 10, 2004)
OPINI ON OF THE COURT

* Honorable Frank J . Magill , Senior Circuit Judge for t

he Eighth Cir cuit, sitting by designation.1 Ming Ping Ie’s s on, Riki e Tjahjadi , is also a par t of Ms. Ie’ s peti tion for asy lum and wit hho ldin g of

rem ova l, ho we ver , his c laim s are der ivati ve o f M s. Ie’s . 8 U .S.C . § 115 8(b )(3)( A)
. 2 RE ND EL L, Circuit

Judge
. Min g Ping Ie 1 (“Ie”) petitioned thi s Court for review of the Attorney General’s denialof her claim s fo r asylu m a nd r elief fro m re mo val. W e ha ve ju risdi ction und er 8 U.S .C. § 125 2( a) . F orth e r ea so ns st at edbe lo w, we wi llde ny th e p et itio n f

orre vi ew. I. Ie, a native and citi zen of Indonesi a, ent ered the United Stat es as a non- immigrant visitor with autho rization to remain in the coun try until March 16 , 2001. R espond ent’s Br. a t 2. W hen she rem aine d be yond that t ime , she wa s pla ced in re mo val p roc eed ing s. She conceded removabi lit y, but cla imed eli gibil ity for asylum and requested withholding of rem oval as w ell as relief under the U nited Na tions Con vention A gainst Torture (“CA T”) b ecau se of

perse cution in her h om e cou ntry on ac coun t of he r Ch inese e thnicity and Ca tho lic re ligio us b elief s. As w e write solely

for the parties, our recitat ion of the facts will be limited to those
necessar y t o our deter

minati on. In her

applic ation f

or asy lum and at a hearing befor e the Immig ration Judge (“IJ”), Ie described m ultiple incidents wh ich, she alleged, w ere evide nce o f hara ssme nt as a r esult of her eth nicity and religiou s belief s. The se incid ents include d being bull ied as a c hild by other s chool chi ldren, robberi es bypersons s he believed to be ethnic Indonesian Muslims, and the destructi on of her hom e and business3

dur ing wid esp read riots in Ja kar ta in M ay 19 98. The IJ found that Ie fa iled to establ ish her eligibili ty

for asylum on the grounds that there wa s no basis to co nclude tha t Ie had suffered past pe rsecution in he r home country or th at sh e w ill suffer f

utu re p erse cutio n on the b asis o f he r eth nicit y or rel igio n. Id. at 19. The IJ al so held t

hat Ie f aile d to demonstr ate that she was under a discer nable threat of tort ure shoul d she ret

urn to I ndonesia and, theref ore, fa iled to establ ish el igibi lit y for relie f un der the C AT
. Id. at 19-20. The IJ’s order deny ing Ie’ s appli cati on for asylum and withholding of removal t o Indonesi a and deny ing her r elie f under the CAT w as affirmed wit

hout opini on by t

he Board of Immigration Appeals ( “BIA”) pursuant to 8 C.F .R. § 100 3.1( e)(4 ). Id. at 2. Ie then f iled a petition for r eview with this Court alle ging that the IJ’s assessm ent of her c laims of pa st persecution an d her fea r of future per sec utio n w as n ot b ase d on sub stan tial ev iden ce in the r eco rd. II. Wher e, as he re , t

he BIA de fe rs to th e I J’ s o pi ni on and a ff ir ms with out

opini on, we
rev iew the I J’s d ecis ion to ad dre ss su bsta ntiv e ch allen ges . Gao v. Ashcroft , 299 F.3d 266, 271 (3d Cir. 2002). Whether an applicant for asylum has demonstrated past pe rs ec ut io n, ora we ll -f oun de d f ea r o f f utur e p er se cu ti on, is a f ac tu al que st io n wh ic h we
rev iew und er th e su bsta ntial evid enc e sta nda rd. Id. at 272. W e will upho ld the IJ’s decisi on if her c onclusi ons are suppor ted by “‘reas onable, substantial and probati ve evide nce o n the re cord cons idered as a w hole’” and w ill reverse “‘on ly if there is4

evidence s o compelli ng that no reasonable factfi nder could c onclude as t he [IJ] did.’ ” Mulanga v. Ashcroft , 349 F.3d 123, 131 (3d Cir. 2003) (quot ing Kayembe v. Ashcrof t , 334 F.3 d 23 1, 23 4 (3 d C ir. 20 03) ). III. To qu alify for a grant of asylum, Ie m ust prove tha t she mee ts the statutory defini tion of a

refugee, i.e ., t

hat she i s an ali en who is unable or unwilling to ret

urn to her home country

“because of per secuti on or a well- founded fear of per secuti on on account of race, reli gion, national ity , membership in a particular soci al group, or poli tica l opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). To qualify for withholding of removal, Ie must show that, if deport ed, there is a “clear probabil ity” that

she willbe persecut ed on account of a spe cifie d gr oun d, in this c ase ethn icity or r eligi on, i f ret urn ed to Ind one sia. See Zubeda v. Ashcroft , 333 F.3d 463, 469 (3d Cir. 2003). Thi s standard requi res a showing that “it is more likely than not that the alien w ould be su bject to persecu tion” upon return to th e alie n’s h om e co unt ry. INS v. Stev ic , 467 U.S . 407 , 424 (19 84)
. IV. The IJ found that none of the inci dents r eported by Ie rose to the l evel of persecution required for a gr ant of asylum. While I e testifie d to inci dents of al leged discrim ination from her ch ildhoo d to ad ulthoo d, she failed to estab lish that th ese inc idents were motivat ed by animus towards her e thnicity or rel igion. In each of her confrontations with ethni c Indonesi ans, her assai lants apparent ly

demanded money or pos sessi ons, and5

eve ry incid ent c onc lud ed w itho ut p hysica l vio lenc e to I e. Id. The IJ interpreted t hese incide nts as s treet

crimes t hat “coul d happen anywhere in the world because aperson wanted somethi ng that was pos sessed by someone else, ” rathe r than evi dence of ethni c or relig iou s pe rsec utio n. Id. at 18. Regarding the 1998 riot s in Jakarta which r eportedly des troy ed Ie’s home and shop, I e was not in t

he city when the riots occurred and was never in i mmediate phy sical dan ger . Id. at 17. While Ie t esti fied she di d not rebui ld aft er the riots for fear of a recurrence, sh e did rem ain in the cou ntry, without similar incident, for tw o years before leavin g Ind ones ia for th e U nited S tates. Sin ce the 199 8 riots, the re hav e bee n fav orab le cha nge s in In don esia dire cted at im pro vin g re ligio us a nd e thn ic tol eran ce. Id. at 71 -73
. These changes included the repeal on governm ent prohibiti ons on teaching the Chinese langu age a nd ce lebratio n of the C hines e N ew Ye ar as w ell as a d ecrea se in ra cially
mo tivat ed a ttack s in In don esia
. Id. Ie als o ha s an adu lt son wh o still li ves in Ja kar ta. Id. at 74-75, 87-88 & 91. He is of et hnic Chinese descent and a Catholi c, l ike Ie, but he continue s to re side i n Indonesi a apparent ly without any

problems or

indication t

hat he wis hes to fle e the cou ntry fo r fea r of ethn ic or relig iou s pe rsec utio n. Id. Bas ed on the ev idenc e pres ented , the IJ co nclud ed tha t Ie failed to dem onstra te past per secuti on on the basi s of her et hnicit y or reli gious bel iefs and was not entitled to a pre sum ptio n of

futu re p erse cutio n. See Abdulrahman v. Ashcroft , 330 F.3d 587, 592 (3d Cir. 2003) . Without

such a pres umption, Ie must pr esent evi dence to es tabli sh a6

“well-f ounded fear of fut

ure pers ecuti on” by s howing “that she has a genuine fear, and that a reasonabl e person i n her circumstances would f ear pers ecuti on if ret

urned to her native country .” Gao , 299 F.3d at 272. This s ubject ive fear of future pe rsecut ion must be “support ed by obj ecti ve evidence t hat pers ecuti on is a r easonable possibi lit y. ” Chang v. INS , 119 F.3d 1055, 1066 (3d Cir. 1997). The IJ found that

Ie fai led to present obj ecti ve evide nce to establish a reaso nable fear o f futu re pers ecutio n on the ba sis of h er ethn icity
orre li gi on, andfai le d t o es ta bl is h he r e li gi bi li ty

for a gr ant of a sy lum. The standar d for eli gibil ity for withhol ding of removalis more exac ting t han that for asylum
. Zubeda , 333 F.3d at 469-70. Having fa iled to establ ish a well -founded fear of persecution required for a grant of asy lum, by definition, Ie has also fai led to establi sh the c lear p rob abili ty of p erse cutio n re qui red for wit hho ldin g of rem ova l. Id. V. There is s ubstant ial e vidence t o support t he IJ’s denialof Ie’s applic ation f or asy lum and withhol ding of removal . For t he foregoi ng reasons, we will DENY the petiti on for review of the decision of the Board of Im migration Appeals.