### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T June 13, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 15723 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N o. A 79- 469- 873 L U T H E R M A R T Y N R O G A H A N G , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

a D e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( Ju n e 13, 2005) B efo re T JO F L A T , B L A C K an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: B e f or e us i s the pe t i t i on of

L uthe rM a r ty n R oga ha ng, a na t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of I ndone s i a , s e e ki ng r e vi e w of the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ( “ B I A ” ) de c i s i onBe causeRoga hang ’s removal proce eding s commence d after April 1, 1997, the 1 eff ective da te of the Illeg al Immigration Reform and Immigra nt Responsibil ity

Act of 1996, Pub. L . No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (Sept. 30, 1996) (“ IIRIRA”), this ca se is g overne d by the perma nent provisions of the I

NA, as a mended by

IIRIRA. Gonzalez-Oropeza v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 321 F .3d 1331, 1332 (11th Cir. 2003). Rog ahang ’s petition does not seek review of the BIA’s dec ision denying his a pplication for a sylum or protection under the United Nations Conventi on

on To rt ureand Other C ru e l, I

nhuma n o r D e gradingTre atment o r P unishment. To thee xtent th at th eB IA’ s d e c isi on wa s b a se d o n a

le g al determinatio n, our re view i s 2 de novo. D- Muhumed v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 388 F .3d 814, 817 (11th Cir. 2004). The B IA’s fac tual determinatio ns arereviewe d und e r t hesu bs tanti al e vide nc ete st, and thi s Co ur t “ mus t aff irm the BIA’s dec ision if it i s supported by rea sonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the re cord c onsidered a s a whole.”Al Najjar v. Ashcrof

t, 257 F.3d 1262, 1283-84 ( 11th Cir. 2 0 0 1 ) ( qu o t at i o no m i tt ed). W e “ cann o ten gage i nfa ct -f i n di n g o nap p ea l , n o r m ay we we i gh evidenc e that wa s not previously considere d below.” Id. at 1278. Therefore, a f inding of fac t will be reversed “ only

when the record compels a rever sal; the merefac t that the rec ord may support a contrary

conclusion is not enough to justi fy a reversal . . . .” Adef

emi v. Ashcrof

t, 386 F.3d 1022, 1027 ( 11th Cir. 2004) (en ba nc), petition for cer

t. filed, (No. 04- 7944), (U.S. Oc t. 28, 2004); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B ) (“ [T] he administrative f indings of f

act a re c onclusive unless any

rea sonable adjudicator would becompelled to conc lude to the contra ry . . . .”). 2 a f f i r m i ng a n I m m i gr a t i on J udge ( “ I J ” ) or de rde ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f or w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l u n d e r§ 2 4 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( A ) o f th e I m m ig r a tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A ct(“ IN A ”) , 8 U . S . C . § 1 23 1(b)(3)(A ). T he spec i fi c r el i ef he se eks i s the re vers al 1 o f th e d e c i s i o n d e n y i n g h i s ap p l i c a t i o n f o rwi th h o l d i n g o f

r e m o v a l u n d e rth e I NA . 2 A n a l i e n i s e nt i t l e d t o w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde rthe I N A i f he c a n s how tha thi s l i f

e orf r e e dom w oul d be thr e a t e ne d on a c c ountof hi s r a c e , r e l i gi on, nat i on al i ty, m em bers hi p i n a part i cul arsoci al grou p, or po l i t i ca l op i ni on . M endo za v . U. S . Att o r n e y Ge n . , 3 2 7 F . 3 d , 1 2 8 3 1 2 8 7 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) ; s e e a l s o I NA § 241( b) ( 3) , 8 U . S . C . § 1231( b) ( 3) . I f c r e di bl e , the a l i e n’ s t e s t i m ony “ m a y be3

s uf f i c i e ntt o s us t a i n the bur de n of pr oof w i thoutc or r obor a t i on. ” M e ndoz a , 327 F . 3d a t1287 ( quot i ng 8 C . F . R . § 208. 16( b) ) . “ A n a l i e n be a r s the bur de n of de m ons tr a t i ng tha the m or e - l i ke l y - tha n- notw oul d be pe r s e c ut e d ort or tur e d upon hi s r eturn t o the coun try i n q uest i on . ” M endo za , 32 7 F . 3d at12 87 . A n al i en ca n m e e thi s bur de n by s how i ng e i the r( 1) “ pa s tpe r s e c ut i on i n hi s c ountr y ba s e d on a pr ot e c t e d gr ound, ” i n w hi c h c a s e a r e butt a bl e pr e s um pt i on i s c r e a t e d tha thi s l i f e or f r e e d o m w o u ld b e th r e a te n e d if h e r e tu r n e d to h is c o u n try ; o r( 2 ) “a f u tu r e th r e a t to h is lif e o rf r e e d o m o n a p r o te c te d g r o u n d in h is c o u n try .” I d . If the al i en dem on stra t es pastpers ec ut i on , i ti s pre sum ed thathi s or herl i fe orf r e e dom w oul d be thr e a t e ne d i n the f utur e unl e s s the gove r nm e ntc a n r e butthe p resu m p t i o n . 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 6 (b )(1 )(i ). If, h o w ev er, th e al i en d o es n o test ab l i sh pastpers ec ut i on , he or she bear s the bu rden of show i ng thati ti s m ore l i kel y than n o tth at(1 ) h e o r sh e w o u l d b e p ersecu t ed o n acco u n to f race, rel i g i o n , n at i o n al i ty, m e m be r s hi p i n a pa r t i c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup, orpol i t i c a l opi ni on; a nd ( 2) he ors he coul d n otavoi d a future threa tt o h i s or herl i fe or fr ee do m by re l ocat i ng t o ano ther p a r t o f h is o rh e rc o u n try if

u n d e ra ll th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s it w o u ld b e r e a s o n a b le to expectre l ocat i on . S ee 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 16 (b)( 2); se e a l so M endo za , 32 7 F . 3d at 12 87 (f i nd i ng that“ [a ] n al i en w ho has notshow n p as tpers ec ut i on , tho ug h, m ay s till b e e n title d to w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l if

h e c a n d e m o n s tr a te a f

u tu r e th r e a t to4

hi s l i f e orf r e e dom on a pr ot e c t e d gr ound i n hi s c ountr y ” ) . T o e s t a bl i s h the nece ss ary c ausa l conn ec t i on betw ee n the po l i t i ca l op i ni on and t he fe ar ed pe r s e c ut i on, the a l i e n m us tpr e s e nt“ s pe c i f i c , de t a i l e d f

a c t s s how i ng a good r e a s on t o fea r thathe or she w i l l be si ng l ed ou tfor per se cut i on on ac coun tof such an op i ni on . ” A l N ajj ar , 25 7 F . 3d at12 87 (quo t at i on s om i tt ed) ( di sc ussi ng as yl um ). A l tho ug h the IN A do es no texpres sl y def i ne “ pers ec ut i on , ” w e have s ai d that

“ pe r s e c ut i on i s a n e xtr e m e c onc e pt , r e qui r i ng m or e tha n a f e w i s ol a t e d i nc i de nt s of v e rb a l h a r a s s m e n t o rin tim id a tio n , a n d th a t m e r e h a r a s s m e n t d o e s n o t a m o u n t to p ersecu t i o n . ” S ep u l v ed a, 4 0 1 F . 3 d at1 2 3 1 (q u o t at i o n s o m i tt ed ). G en eral l y, c o n d itio n s w h ic h a f

f e c t th e p o p u la c e a s a w h o le o rin la r g e p a r t a r e in s u f f ic ie n t to es t abl i sh pers ec ut i on , A l N ajj ar , 25 7 F . 3d at12 88 , and o ther c i rc ui t s have hel d that h a r a s s m e n t o rd is c r im in a tio n w ith o u t m o r e d o e s n o t r is e to th e le v e l o f p e r s e c u tio n . S ee G hal y v. I. N . S . , 58 F . 3d 14 25 , 14 31 (9th C i r. 19 95 ) ( ho l di ng that “[ d ]is c r im in a tio n o n th e b a s is o f r a c e o rr e lig io n , a s m o r a lly r e p r e h e n s ib le a s it m a y be , doe s notor di na r i l y a m ountt o " pe r s e c ut i on" w i thi n the m e a ni ng of the A c t . ” ) ; s e e a l s o B a s t a ni pourv. I . N . S , 980 F . 2d 1129, 1133 ( 7th C i r . 1992) (di st i ng ui shi ng pers ec ut i on fr om m er e di sc ri m i nat i on or hara ss m ent ). In consi deri ng the re cord as a w ho l e, w e a re sa t i sf i ed thatsubst ant i al e v id e n c e s u p p o r ts th e c o n c lu s io n th a t R o g a h a n g d id n o t s h o w th a t it is m o r e lik e ly5

than n otthathe suff

er ed or w i l l suff

erfuture pers ec ut i on ; m oreover, the re cord do es no tcom pel a c on cl usi on t o the cont ra ry . T he evi dence es t abl i shed that R o g ah an g su ffered (1 ) a M ay 1 5 , 1 9 9 8 , i n ci d en td u ri n g w h i ch an t i -C h i n ese com m ent s w er e di re ct ed athi m as he w as beat en, robb ed and h i s hou se w as bu rned do w n, (2) aN ov em ber 199 8 i nci dentdu ri ng w hi ch hi s C hri st i an church w as bur ne d, buthe w a s notphy s i c a l l y ha r m e d, a nd ( 3) a n A pr i l 1999, i nc i de ntdur i ng w h ic h a n ti- C h in e s e c o m m e n ts w e r e d ir e c te d a t h im a s h e w a s b e a te n . A l though the e vi de nc e c oul d s uppor ta f i ndi ng tha the w a s t a r ge t e d on a c c o u n t o f

h is C h in e s e e th n ic ity a n d C h r is tia n f a ith , h is te s tim o n y in d ic a te s th a t, w i th r e s pe c tt o the M a y 15 i nc i de nt , the pe rpe tr a t or s ’ pr i m a r y obj e c t i ve m a y ha ve be e n t o r ob hi m of

hi s w a l l e ta nd A T M c a r d, a s oppos e d t o pe r s e c ut i ng hi m on the ba s i s of hi s e thni c i ty orr e l i gi ous be l i e f s . L i ke w i s e , r e ga r di ng the A pr i l 1999 in c id e n t, h e te s tif

ie d th a t h e w a s b e a te n o n ly a f te rh e to ld h is a tta c k e r s th a t h e d id notha ve a ny m one y orc i ga r e tt e s . A ga i n, a l though the pe rpe tr a t or s di s pl a y e d a d eg ree o f eth n i c an i m u s, h i s t est i m o n y su p p o rt s th e IJ’ s fi n d i n g th ath i s C h i n ese e th n ic ity a n d r e lig io u s a f f ilia tio n w e r e n o t th e m o tiv a tin g f o r c e b e h in d th e a tta c k . R ather, the evi dence s up po rt s the IJ ’ s f i nd i ng that , i n the m i dstof w i despre ad l oo t i ng and m ob vi ol ence , the att ac k w as prec i pi t at ed because the perpetra t ors w a n te d h is c ig a r e tte s a n d m o n e y .6

T h e N o v e m b e r1 9 9 8 c h u r c h - b u r n in g in c id e n t, h o w e v e r , is m o r e p r o b le m a tic b e c a u s e n e ith e rth e I J n o rth e B I A d is c u s s e d it d ir e c tly , a lth o u g h th e I J d id im p ly tha tthi s i nc i de ntw a s m ot i va t e d by di s c r i m i na t i on, notpe r s e c ut i on. R oga ha ng, how e ve r , w a s notphy s i c a l l y i nj ur e d dur i ng the i nc i de nta nd the r e c or d doe s not com pel the concl usi on thathe w as si ng l ed ou tfor per se cut i on . A s w e have r e c ogni z e d, “ [ n] ota l l e xc e pt i ona l tr e a tm e nti s pe r s e c ut i on, ” G onz a l e z v. R e no, 212 F .3 d 1 3 3 8 , 1 3 5 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) , a n d th e m e r e f a c t th a t th e r e c o r d m a y s u p p o r t a c ontr a r y c onc l us i on i s note nough t o j us t i f y a r e ve r s a l . S e e a l s o S e pul ve da , 401 F . 3d at12 31 (hol di ng thatal tho ug h the evi dence putforth b y the pet i t i on er perm i tt ed the fi nd i ng thatshe w as att ac ked and threa t ened on ac coun tof her pol i t i c a l a c t i vi t i e s , the r e c or d di d notc om pe l the c onc l us i on tha tthe thr e a t s a nd a tt a c ks r os e t o the l e ve l of pe r s e c ut i on be c a us e of he rpol i t i c a l i nvol ve m e nt ) . L i ke S epul veda, the re cord i n thi s c as e m ay supp ortthe concl usi on thatR og ahang m ay h a v e b e e n ta r g e te d b a s e d o n a p r o te c te d g r o u n d , b u t th e r e c o r d d o e s n o t c o m p e l a f in d in g th a t R o g h a n g w a s in f a c t s in g le d o u t a n d p e r s e c u te d b e c a u s e o f h is r e lig io u s b e lie f

s s o a s to ju s tif

y o u rr e v e r s a l o f

th e d e c is io n s b e lo w . A lth o u g h R o g a h a n g ’s f e a rth a t h e w ill b e p e r s e c u te d if h e r e tu r n s to Indo nesi a app ea rs t o b e s ubj ec t i vel y r ea sonabl e, the evi dence i n the re cord do es no tcom pel a f

i nd i ng thathi s f

ea r i s obj ec t i vel y r ea sonabl e. R ather, the evi dence7

t ends t o est abl i sh thati ti s notobj ec t i vel y r ea sonabl e f or R og ahang t o fea r p e r s e c u tio n u p o n h is r e tu r n to I n d o n e s ia . N o ta b ly , h is f a m ily m e m b e r s , w h o a r e a ll si m i l ar l y s i tuat ed, cont i nu e t o res i de i n Ind on es i a a nd he pres ent ed no evi dence tha tthe y ha ve be e n ha r m e d i n a ny w a y be c aus e of the i rC hi ne s e e thni c i ty or C hri st i an fa i th and prac t i ce . In sum , the B IA ’ s det erm i nat i on thatR og ahang fai l ed to e s ta b lis h a c le a rp r o b a b ility th a t h e w o u ld b e p e r s e c u te d if h e r e tu r n e d to In d o n esi a i s su p p o rt ed b y su b st an t i al ev i d en ce, an d n o th i n g i n th e reco rd co m p el s a r e ve r s a l of

tha tde c i s i on. P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.