Opinion ID: 3028179
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alberta Harminto

Text: In considering Harminto’s claim for asylum, the IJ found that the incidents of fear and embarrassment that Harminto suffered in Indonesia, including the 1998 riots, did not rise to the level of persecution. The IJ noted that, although Harminto was afraid during the riots, she was not harmed during these events and her home and business were not damaged. The IJ further found that the bombing of a church in Harminto’s town did not amount to persecution because Harminto did not regularly attend this church and the government had no involvement in the bombing and, in fact, took steps to protect the churches. We find no error in the IJ’s conclusion that the harms suffered by Harminto do 7 not rise to the level of persecution. Since we find no basis to disturb the IJ’s denial of Harminto’s request of asylum on the grounds that she was not persecuted, we need not reach the IJ’s findings as to the cause of the 1998 riots in Indonesia or the motivation for the attacks against petitioners in Indonesia. The IJ also concluded that Harminto failed to establish that she has a well-founded fear of future persecution. The IJ found that Harminto traveled to Singapore in 1999 and then voluntarily returned to Indonesia a few days later. She remained in Indonesia for three years after the 1998 riots. The IJ concluded that “[t]hese are not the actions of someone who is so fearful of their [sic] lives that they must flee a country for safety.” App. 29. The IJ further found that, although there are still discriminatory laws on the books in Indonesia, “conditions are certainly improving for citizens of Chinese descent.” App. 30. Harminto argues that this finding is erroneous. However, we do not agree that “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude” that conditions in Indonesia are not improving for citizens of Chinese descent. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). The IJ’s finding is supported by substantial evidence, including the observation in the State Department’s Report that Chinese cultural holidays are now openly celebrated in Indonesia. App. 295. We therefore have no basis to disturb the IJ’s conclusion that Harminto failed to establish that she suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution. 8 Accordingly, we also find no error in the IJ’s conclusion that Harminto failed to demonstrate her eligibility for withholding of removal. See Ghebrehiwot v. Atty. Gen., 467 F.3d 344, 351 (3d Cir. 2006) (noting that, because standard for grant of withholding of removal is higher than that for eligibility for asylum, an alien who fails to qualify for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal).