### In th e



# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

No. 14-1024

S UG I AR TO H AL I M

, Petitioner,

v.

E RI C H. H OL D E R

, Att or ney General of the United Stat es, Responden t.

Peti tio n fo r Review o f an Order ofthe Bo ard o f Immi gratio n Appe als. No. A0 98 -9 19 -0 14
A RGU E D M A

Y 23, 2014

— D E C I D E D J UN E 17, 2014

Before B AU E R and E A S T E R B R OO K , Circ uit Judges , and S T

. E V E, District Judge. *
B AU E R , Cir cui t Judge. Sugiarto Hali m, an Indonesi an ci tizen,
came to the Uni ted St ates in 2000 and ov er st ay ed hi s tempor a r y vis a. He fi led for asylum, wi thholding of remov al, and

The Hono rab l e Amy J. St. Eve, ofth e United Sta tes D i stric t Court for the * Nor thern Distri ct o f Il l i noi s, si tting by desi gna tio n.2 No. 14-1024 prot ecti on under the Conv ention Agains t T or ture (“CA

T”) statin g that he feared he w ould be persecu t e d if he w ere sent back to Indonesi a due to hi s status as a Chinese Chris tian

. The Immi gr ation Judge (“IJ”) deni ed Hali m’s a p p l icati on for asylum be ca use he fai led to apply wi thin the one-y ear statutor y li mi t, and deni ed Hali m’s other requests for relief becau se he fai led to show past persecuti on or establi sh a w ell-found ed fear of future persecuti on. Hali m appealed to the Board of Immi gr ation Appeals (“BIA”); i t affi rmed the IJ’s deci si on and di smi ssed the appeal. Hali m now petiti ons thi s co ur t for
rev i ew of hi s appli cati on for wi thholding of remov al. W e co nclu de that the or ders of the IJ and BIA are supp or t e d by sub stanti al evidenc e and deny Hali m’s peti tion.

I. BACKGRO UND Hali m, a nati v e and ci tizen of Indonesi a, came to the Uni ted St ates on a vis a in Mar ch 2000, and w as authorized to stay for six months. After hi s vis a expired, he stay ed in the Uni te d St ates wi thout a p p l yin g for any type of legal resi dency

. In 2005, the Dep a r tment of Homeland Security detain ed Hali m and ini tiated remov al proceedings again st hi m for ov erstay ing hi s vi sa in violati on of 8 U.S .C. § 1227(a)(1) (B). H a li m sought asylum, wi thholding of remov al pro c e e d in gs under § 241(b) (3) of the Immi gr ation and Nationali ty Act, and prot e cti on under the CA T

. Hali m contended that i f he w as forced to ret urn to Indonesi a, he w ould be subject to persecu

tion bec ause of hi s Chinese ethni ci ty and Chr i sti an beli efs. In hi s remov al proceedings, Hali m testifi ed about di scri mi

nati on he and hi s fami ly faced in Indonesi a due to their Chine se d escent. Hali m testifi ed that becau se hi s si ster w asNo. 14-1024 3
earlier deni ed enrollment in a n Indonesi an uni v ersi ty , he specu lated that he w ould be rej ected as w ell. Therefore , he left hi s ho me t o wn of Medan in 1988 to atte nd uni v ersi ty in Germany

. On a tr i p home to vis i t hi s fami ly in 1994, Hali m wi tnessed
a riot fu e l e d by ethni c and labor i ssu es. The riot tar get ed Chinese-own ed stor es and w as a t a shopping mall where hi s si ster owned a stor e. Hali m and hi s si ster were not injured and the rioter s di d not ente r o r damage hissi ster’s stor e. In 1 9 9 8 , violent raci al riots tar get ing people of Chinese ethni ci ty brok e out again thro ug ho ut Indonesi a. In Hali m’s hometown of Medan, ro ck-throwin g rioters sw armed the street s in hi s fami ly’s nei ghborho od. Hali m’s fami ly members

w ere not tar get ed or injured in the riot. At the tim e, Hali m w as in Germany

. Addi tionally

, Hali m recounted sev eral occasi ons when he thought that he w as harassed becau se of hi s e t hnic i ty

. He clai med that when he tr av eled from Ge r many to Medan, Indonesi an ai rpor t personnel too k hi s pass port, searched hi s luggage , and demanded money from hi m before they ret urned hi s posses sio ns. Hali m alleged that the ai rpor t personnel tr eated only ethni c Chinese in thi s manner

. Hali m sai d that he complained about the croo ked practic e one tim e to an offi ce at the ai rpor t, but nothin g ca me of hi s complaint. Hali m also testifi ed about a hosti le inci dent he had wi th a taxi driv er when he acci dently stepped on the taxi driv er’s foot

. The driver told Hali m that i f he had his fr i ends wi th hi m, they w ould hav e kill ed Hali m.4 No. 14-1024
Hali m ret urned home for a y ear after completing hi s master’s degr ee in 1999. Hali m testifi ed that people came to hi s home and w ould “knock at the door , asking for money

, thro wing ro cks and saying Chinese li kes to e a t pork .” Hali m
w as nev er detain ed, arr ested, prosecuted, or beaten becau se of hi s ethni ci ty during the y ear he li v ed in Indonesi a. He flew to Los Angeles, Cali fornia, in 2000. Hali m learned about Chris tiani ty when he l i v ed and studi ed in Germany

, but w as not bapti zed unti l 2005. He fears ret urning to Indonesi a as a practic ing Chris tian becau se he read art i cles about chu rches being bombe d in Indonesi a and
some w ere Chris tian chu rches. Hali m, how e ver , di d not personally exper ience any di scri minati on on accoun t of hi s Chris tianbeli efs whi le he li v ed in Indonesi a. Hali m also sub mi tte d docum e ntation to the IJ about the turmo il t hat exis ted in Indonesi a after hi s departur e. The Uni ted St ates Department of St ate’s 2 0 1 0 Hu m an Ri ghts Re p or t for Indonesi a (“2010 Human Ri ghts Repor t”) indi cated that the Indonesi an government offi ci al l y promo ted raci al and ethni c toler ance; y et, a numb er of laws, reg ulati ons, and decrees sti ll had di scri minator y effects on ethni c C hin ese ci tizens

. The U nit ed St ates Department of St ate’s 2010 Reli gious Fr ee d o m Repor t for Indonesi a (“2010 R e l i gious Fr eedom Repor t”) describ ed the religi ous, legal, and poli tic al framew or k of the country and documented sev eral of the religi ous abus es whi ch
oc curred betw een 2008 and 2010. V arious internet art i cles detailed religi ous attacks on C hris tian s and the continued di scri minati on agains t et hni c Chinese througho ut Indonesi a.No. 14-1024 5
At the tim e of Hali m’s remov al proceedings, hi s father and four of hi s fi v e si

blings sti ll li v ed in Medan. Hi s four si blings owned thei r o wn b usiness es in Indonesi a. The IJ d e ni e d H a l i m ’s re qu e s ts and or dered hi s deport ation. First, the IJ deter mined that Hali m’s asylum appli cati on w a s unti mely becau se he fi led i t more than one y ear after hi s arr i v al in the Uni ted St ates. Next, the IJ deter mined that Hali m di d not quali fy for wi thholding of remov al, finding that the evidenc e di d not demonstrate that Hali m had personally suffered p a st persecuti on or that he w ould face a clear probabi li ty of future persecuti on i f he ret urned to Indonesi a. The IJ also found that the evidenc e di d not supp or t Hali m’ s cl ai m that a patter n or practic e of persecuti on again st Chinese Chris tian s as a gr oup exis ted in Indonesi a. Fin ally , the IJ deter mined that Hali m di d not quali fy for pr ote cti on under the CA T

. On appeal t o the BIA, Hali m challen ged the IJ’s deni al of wi thholding of remov al and prot ecti on under the CA T

. Hali m di d not contest the IJ’s finding that his appli cati on for asylum

w as un tim ely

. The BIA agr eed wi th the IJ that Hali m fai led to meet his burden of showing past persecuti on or a clear probabi li ty of fu t ure persecuti on in or der to quali fy for wi thholding of remov al. The BIA also conclu ded that Hali m fai led to establi sh that he faced a clear probabi li ty of tor ture, a requirement for CA

T prot ecti on. The BIA upheld the IJ’s or der and di smi ssed the appeal.

II. DISCUSSION O n appeal, Hali m now arg ues only that he i s entitled t o wi thholding of re mov al. He does not contest t he BIA’s deni al of hi s appli cati on for asylum or prot ecti ons under the CA T in6 No. 14-1024
hi s bri ef and he has w ai v ed hi s right to rev i ew of these i ssu es. Asere v
. Gonzal e s , 439 F .3d 378, 381 (7th Ci r
. 2006). Hali m focus es hi s appeal on the legal standards required for wi thholding of remov al that thi s Ci rcui t di scu ss e d in Salim v
. Holder, 728 F .3d 718 (7th Ci r
. 2013). Hali m contends that he has
a w ell-found ed fear of future persecuti on based on the “ p a tte rn and practic e” of persecuti on in Indones ia again st gr oups of si mi larly-si tuated ethni c Chinese and/or Chris tian s. As a n alter nati v e, Ha l im contends that he met hi s burden of proo f and showed that he faces an indi vidu ali zed ris k of persecuti on i f he i s forced to ret urn to Indonesia. Ha l im does not arg ue that he exper ie nc ed past persecuti on, whi ch under 8 C.F .R. § 208

. 16(b) (1)( i ) w ould entitle hi m to a presumpti on that he

w ould face f

uture per secu tion up on hi s return t o Indonesia. When the BIA adopts and affi rms the IJ’s deci si on and adds i ts own analysi s, as i t di d here, w e rev i ew both deci si on s. See Bathula v
. Holder, 723 F .3d 889, 897 (7 t h Ci r
. 2013); Familia Rosario v
. Holder, 655 F .3d 739, 743 (7th Ci r
. 2011). W e apply the prin ci ples of Chevron deference to the BIA’ s interpr etat i on of the i mmi gr ation laws

. Sci alab ba v
. Cuel lar de Osorio , No. 12-930 (U.S. June 9, 2014), Slip. Op. 13 (plurali ty opini on); see Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v
. Natural Resour ce s Defen se Counc il, Inc. , 467 U.S. 837, 842–844 (1984). Thus, w e apply a statute’ s plain meaning i f the statute i s clear

, or w e defer to the B I A ’s reasonable int e r p r etat i on i f the statute i s unc lear

. Id. When the i ssue requires a rev i ew of the BIA’s factual findings, as i s the case here, w e rev i ew the BIA’s deci si on for sub stanti al evidenc e. See Bathula, 7 2 3 F

. 3 d at 897–98; V ahora v
. Holder, 626 F .3d 907, 912 (7th Ci r
. 2010). W

e wi ll affi rm the BIA’s deter minati on to deny
e li gib i li ty for wi thholding of remov al i f i ts deter minati on “ isNo. 14-1024 7
supp or ted by reasonable, sub stanti al, and probat i v e evidenc e on the recor d consi dered as a whole.” INS v
. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992); V

ahora, 626 F .3d at 912. W e rev erse only i f the recor d “i s so compelling that no reasonable f a c tf in d e r c ou ld fai l to find the requis i te fear of persecuti on.” Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. at483–84. T o be eli gib le for wi thholding of remov al, an appli cant
mus t prove a past or future “threat to li fe or freedom.” 8 C.F .R. § 208.16(b) (1)- (2); Y

i Xian Chen v

. Holder, 705 F .3d 624, 628 (7th Ci r
. 2013). A threat to li fe o r fr e e dom i s synonymous wi th persecuti on, whi ch thi s Ci rcui t defines as “detention, arr est, interr ogat i on, prosecuti on, i mpri sonment, i llegal searches, confi scati on of proper ty , survei llance, beatings, tor ture, behavi or that threat ens the same, and non-lif e-threat ening behavi or such as tor ture and economi c depriv ation i f the resulting condi tions are suffi ci ently sev ere.” Y i Xian Chen , 705 F .3d at 629 (internal ci tations omi tte d). “‘Persecuti on’ does not inclu de the acti ons of priv ate ci tizens ‘unless the government i s compli ci t in those acts or i s unabl e or unw i lling to take steps to prev ent them.’” Bitsin v
. Holder, 719 F .3d 619, 628 (7th Ci r
. 2 0 1 3 ) (quoting Chakir v
. Gonza les , 466 F .3d 563, 570 (7th Ci r
. 2006)). If an appli cant di d not suffer past per se cu tion, he mus t prove that i t i s “more li ke l y than not” that he faces future persecuti on “on account of hi s race, religi on, nati onali ty , membershi p in a particu lar soci al gr oup, or poli tic al opini on.” 8 C.F .R. § 208

. 16(b) ; Bitsin , 719 F .3d at 628. An appli cant can prove a future threat to l ife o r freedom in one of tw o w ays: (1) establ ish that the country to whi ch the appli cant i s to be8 No. 14-1024
removed has a “patter n and practic e of persecuti on” again st “a gr oup of persons si mi larly-si tuated to t he a ppli cant,” or (2) establi sh that the appli cant faces a personal ris k of persecuti on i f he i s forced to ret urn home. 8 C.F .R. § 20 8

. 16(b) (2)( i )-( i i ); Salim , 728 F .3d at 722–23. A. Hali m’s Pattern or Practi ce of Persecut ion Claim An a p pli cant for wi thholding of remov al faces a di ffi cult burden to prove that a country has a patter n or practic e of persecuting a gr oup si mi larly-si tuated to hi mse l f. Mitreva v
. Gonza les , 4 1 7 F .3d 761, 765 (7th Ci r
. 2005). T o establi sh a country’ s patter n or practic e of persecuti on, an appli cant mus t prove the exis tence of a “systemati c, perv asiv e, or or gani zed effort to kill, i mpri son, or sev erely injure members of the prot ected gr oup, and thi s effort mus t be perpet uated or toler ated by state actor s.” Ingmantoro v
. Mukask ey, 550 F .3d 646 (7th Ci r
. 20 0 8 ). P atte rn or practic e cases require an ext reme lev el of persecuti on becau se “once the court finds that a gr oup
w as sub ject to a patter n or practic e of persecuti o n, ev ery member of the gr oup i s eli gib le.” Ahmed v
. Gonza le s , 4 67 F .3d 669, 675 (7th Ci r . 2006). 1. Whether a Pattern or Practi ce of Persecut ing Ethnic Chines e Exists in Indonesi a Thi s Ci rcui t deni ed th e petiti ons of Chinese Chris tian s being depo r ted to Indonesi a in three prior cases becau se pet it io ne rs could not prove that Indonesi a’s g ov ernment had
a patter n or practic e of persecuting members of si mi larlysi tuat e d raci al or religi ous gr oups. See Salim , 728 F .3d 718; Ingmantoro, 550 F .3d 6 4 6 ; Kaharudin v
. Gonza les , 500 F .3d 619 (7th Ci r
. 2007). These cases do not foreclose Halim’s petiti onNo. 14-1024 9
because e a ch appli cati on for wi thholding of remov al i s independently rev i ew ed to ensure that human right s co ndi

tions hav e not deter i or ated to an ext reme lev el of persecuti on. Ingmantoro, 550 F .3d at 651. How ev er , they do present a si gni fi cant hurdle for hi m to o v ercome. Hali m sub mi tte d the 2010 Human Ri ghts Repor t to the IJ to supp or t hi s arg ument that a patter n or practic e of persecuti on of ethni c Chinese exis ts in Indonesi a. He arg ues t hat the evidenc e we rev i ew ed in Ingmantoro and Kaharudin i s now outdate d and does not reflect the current condi tions in Indonesi a. The 2010 Human Ri ghts Repor t stated that the Indonesi an “government offi ci ally promo tes raci al a nd ethni c toler ance” and that ethni c Chinese “increasingly partici pated in poli tic s.” How ev er

, the repo rt also stated that “[a] numb er of art i cles of law , reg ulati on, or decree di scri minated again st ethni c Chinese ci tizens ” and “publi c serv ants sti ll di scri minated again st them when i ssu ing marriage li cens es and in other services .” The 1 2010 Hu m an Ri ghts Re port, how ev er , i s insu ffi ci ent to establi sh
a patter n or practic e of persecuti on: the “systemati c, perv asi v e, or or gani zed effort to kill, i mpri son, or sev erely injure” ethni c

The 20 13 Human Rights Report, the most rece nt repo rt, do es not i nclud e 1 the statem ent “[ a] numb er of articl es of l aw, regul atio n, or decr ee di scri minat ed aga i ns t ethnic Chinese ci tizens.” Instead, the 20 13 repo rt onl y concl udes tha t “[ t]he government of f i c i al l y pro motes racial and ethnic tol erance.” U.S

. Dep’t of State, Indonesi a 20 13 Human Rights Report, ht tp:// www.sta te.go v/j /dr l /rl s/hrrpt/humanrights r e p o r t/ i nd e x. ht m? y e ar = 20 13 &dl i d=2 20 19 6. Co ntrary to Hali m’s argumen t, t he Human Rights Reports suppor t the concl usio n tha t co nd i tio ns fo r ethnic Chinese i n Indones i a ar e i mproving since the ri ots of the 19 90 s. See more at: http://www.state.gov/j/ drl /rl s/hrrpt/

.10 No. 14-1024
Chinese in Indonesi a. Whi le the re portalluded to di scri mination again st ethni c Chinese, “[g]eneral condi tions of hardshi p that a ff e ct entire populati ons, howev er , are not persecuti on.” Ahmed, 4 6 7 F

. 3d at 673. W e agr ee wi th the IJ and BI A that the evid e nc e di d not ris e to the lev el necess ary to establi sh a patter n or pr acti ce of persecuti on. 2. Whether a Pattern or Practi ce of Persecut ing Chris

tians Existsin Indonesi a T o establi sh that he faces a li kelih ood of future persecuti on based on hi s Chris tian fai th, Hali m testifi ed before th e IJ and presented evidenc e of the religi ous t e nsions in Indonesi a. Hali m now r e l ie s on an art i cle about attacks at Chris tian chu rches in Indonesi a and the 2010 Reli gious Fr eedom Repor t. The art i cle menti oned a repo rt that chroni cled re l igious attacks on Chris tians, but a researcher for the repo rt sai d “‘[t]he dominant actor s who commi tte d violence are vigi lante gr oups,’” not the Indonesi an g o vernment. In the art i cle, the Min i ster of Reli gious Affai rs for Ind o ne si a downplay ed the exis tence of religi ous di scri mina t io n and sai d that the “main caus e of religi ous tensi ons w as that some gr oups di d not w ant to meet legal requirements for establi shing houses of

w or shi p.” The Set ara Insti tute for Democracy and P e a ce, a

2 non-gov ernment or gani zation whi ch p ro motes human rights in Indonesi a, also appreci ated the steps the local poli ce t o o k aga inst the perpet rat or s of a violent attack at a Chris tian

The l egal requir ements fo r estab l i shing a ho use of worshi p req u i r e t he 2 approval of l ocal community m emb ers, which can b e di ffi cul t fo r Chri stians to obtain i n neighborhoo ds wi th a Musli m majori ty.No. 14-1024 11
chu rch in whi ch the pastor and a n elder w ere stabbed. The Indonesi an Supreme Court also up he ld an admini strat i v e court’s ruling to a l l o w the bui lding permi t of a Chris tian chu rch. The art i cle di d conclu de, how e ver , that Indonesi an p o li tic i ans and poli ce should take further steps to resolv e religi ous confl i ct. The 2010 Reli gious Fr eedom Re p or t m i rror ed much of what

w as sai d in the art i cle, but stressed that the I nd onesi an government inc reased efforts to condemn religi ously motiv ated attacks and promo te human rights. For example, the Indonesi an government hosted i ts fi rst-ev er interfaith di alogue wi th Uni ted St ates delegate s in 2010, whi ch encouraged interfaith partici pation and addressed commu ni ty needs. R e l ig io us o r g a niz a t io ns , su ch a s N a hd l atul U l a ma ’ s Lakpesdam, dev eloped sch olarshi p prog r ams to enable Musli m st udents to study Chris tian theolo gy at Chris tian sch ools. Local governments prosecuted indi vidu als sus pected of commi tting past religi ously-moti v ated vi olence. And, local poli ce repo rt edly prot ected chu rches holding jo int Chris tian and Musli m religi ous services in P oso, an area “once the scen e of ext reme te nsi on and sectari an violenc e.” Though religi ous confli ct persi sts in Indonesi a, i ts government has notably take n steps to prot ect i ts ci tizens and promo te religi ous toler ance. Respect fo r religi ous freedom in Indonesi a appears to hav e i mprov ed since 2004 when the Fifth C ir cu it held that there w as clear evidenc e that the Chris tian petiti oners had an objectiv e fear of future persecuti on based on their fai th u nder the present c ondi tions of ci vil unrest. Eduard

v
. Ashcroft, 379 F .3d 182, 1 9 1 (5th Ci r
. 2004) (rev ersed and remanded becau se “[a] rev i ew of t he r e co rd indi cate[d] that12 No. 14-1024
Petiti oners’ fears of persecuti on w ere based on their Chris tian fai th in part icular

, and Indonesi an ci vil strife in gener al.”). In thi s case, the evidenc e indi cates that the Indonesi a n government nei ther i mplemented nor permi tte d other s to systemati

cally and perv asiv ely persecute Chris tian s. T o the contrar y

, the evidenc e shows that local a nd nati onal government too k acti ons to i mprov e religi ous freedoms for Chris tian s and other fai ths. Therefore , sub stanti al evidenc e in the recor d supp or ted the IJ’s and BIA’s d eter minati ons that the Indonesi an government does not allow a patter n or practic e of pers e cu t ing Chris tian s. 3
B. Hali m’s Indiv iduali zed Ris k of Future Persecut ion Claim As an alter nati v e, Hali m arg ues that the recor d reflects that he has a w ell-found ed fear that he wi ll be sing l e d o ut and tar ge t e d a s a Chinese Chr i sti an upon hi s r eturn to Indonesi a. He contends t hat the gener al repo rt s o f co ntinued et hni c and religi ous di scri minati on in I nd onesi a in conjuncti on wi th hi s prox i mi ty to the violent riots in the 1990s justif y hi s fear o f persecuti on. Belonging to a dis fav or ed gr oup does not ent i tle Hal i m to
a lower standard of evidenc e to pr ov e hi s indi vidu ali zed fear of persecut io n. Salim , 728 F .3d at 723–24. The standard i s

The 20 12 Reli gio us Freed om Report stil l do cumented ab uses of rel i gio us 3 free d o m i n Indonesi a, b ut condi tio ns fo r Chri stians di d not show a drastic decl i ne or i mprovement fro m the 20 10 repo r t

. U.S

. Dep’t of S t at e , Indonesi a 20 12 Inte r na t i o na l Re l i g i o u s F r e e d o m Re p o r t, http://ww w. st at e

. g o v/

j / d r l / r l s/ i r f/ r el i gio usfreed om/i ndex.htm ?year=2 01 2 &dl i d=2 08 23 2.No. 14-1024 13 objectiv e, and Hali m mus t show “‘speci fi c, detailed facts supp or tin g the reasonableness of [hi s] fe a r ’” that i t i s more li kely than not that he “‘wi ll be singled out for persecuti on’” i f deport ed. Bhatt v
. Reno , 172 F .3d 978, 9 8 2 (7th Ci r
. 1999) (q uo t ing Bevc v
. INS , 47 F .3d 907, 910 (7th Ci r
. 1995)). A petiti oner may rely o n p ast persecuti on to “‘i mply a future threat ’”; how ev er

, “‘the focus remains o n what i s li kely to happen following an ali en’s ret urn home.’” Kaharudin , 500 F .3d at 623 (quoting Kobugabe v
. Gonza les , 440 F .3d 900, 901 (7th Ci r
. 2006)). The sp eci fi c fac ts hi ghli ghted by Hali m fall s hortof showing that he has an indi vidu ali zed ris k of bein g singled out for persecuti on. Hali m w as an uns cathed bystan d e r of the 1994 riot that occurred near hi s si ster’s shop. He w as no t tar get ed
nor w as hi s si ster’s sh o p damaged. Hali m w as in Germany during the 1998 riot, hi s fami ly w as not inju r e d , and hi s fami ly’s house w as not damaged. Furt he r more, the ai rpor t personnel’s unus ual tr eatmen t of Hali m, the taxi driv er’s threat ening comment, and the di sgruntled people wh o c a m e to hi s house w ere merely anecdote s o f “unpleas ant and ev en dangero us condi tions [that] do not necess arily ris e to the lev el of persecuti on.” Mitev v
. INS , 67 F .3d 1325, 1331 (7th Ci r
. 1995);
see also Kaharudin , 500 F .3d at 623 (past encounters when nati v e Indonesi ans “c alled her dero gato ry names, s pat upon her , hi t her wi th ro ck s a nd touched her buttocks” di d not amount to persecuti on). Furt her undermining Hali m’s clai m i s the fact that hi s fami ly continues to oper ate bus iness es and resi de in Indo ne sia unharmed. The IJ’s and the BIA’s deci si ons w ere supp or ted by sub stanti al evidenc e that Hali m di d not reason-14 No. 14-1024 ably fear an indi vidu ali zed threat of per se cu tion upon hi s ret urn home. III. CONCLUSION Hali m fai led to meet the test required for wi thholding of
remov al. He di d not show a patter n or practic e of persecuti on of Chinese Chris tian s in Indonesi a, nor could he establi sh that hi s personal fear o f persecuti on w as reasonable. For these reasons, hi s peti tion for rev i ew i s DE NIED.