Opinion ID: 3023130
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Past Persecution & Well-Founded Fear

Text: Petitioner also argues that the IJ erred in determining that petitioner’s accounts of mistreatment in her home country did not amount to either persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution. Petitioner argues that her accounts of voter intimidation, that is, being threatened with violence to her person and her property if she did not vote for the Golkar party, being forced to politically support an opposing party at a public demonstration, and being bribed constitute persecution as matter of law. To establish past persecution, an applicant must establish not only a particularly egregious incident or series of incidents, but must also establish that the alleged persecution was ‘on account -10- of’ a statutorily-protected ground. Here, petitioner alleges that she was subjected to voter intimidation on account of her sympathy for the PKB party. By her own admission, petitioner was not a member of the PKB party and has not offered any evidence explaining how she was targeted or identified as such on the basis of political opinion. The State Department’s report for 2001 and other sources lend some support for petitioner’s contention that the Golkar party bribed and threatened voters.3 However, neither petitioner’s account or the report differentiates between a general practice of vote buying and intimidation and a practice specifically directed against members of the PKB party and its supporters. Petitioner presses that these allegations demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution. There are both subjective and objective elements to establishing a wellfounded fear of future persecution. Petitioner claims that, based on her experience with members of the Golkar party, she fears that were she to return to Indonesia that similar incidents and threats could occur.4 Petitioner further suggests, in pleadings filed here and during testimony at the immigration hearing, that she might possibly be identified by members of the Golkar party through her voter identification number were she to vote for 3 The 2001 Report states that “[t]here were numerous, and in some cases credible, allegations of vote buying and scattered allegations of voter intimidation, particularly in rural areas.” 4 Petitioner also discusses the pattern of persecution against ethnic Chinese in Indonesia as a ground for establishing her well-founded fear. However, petitioner is not ethnically Chinese, but ethnically Indonesian and Moslem. Therefore, these arguments are unavailing. -11- an opposing party. After reviewing the record and Country reports, the IJ determined that petitioner’s concerns of being identified and subjected to persecution were at best speculative and conjectural. We cannot say that this conclusion is unreasonable. Petitioner has offered nothing to suggest that she would be the target of future threats and intimidation. She is not a member of the PKB, or any other political party in Indonesia. She was not subjected to threats of any kind after the June 1999 elections. Finally, although Indonesia’s human rights record as a whole remains questionable, it continues to work toward a free and open democracy with a representative government. The Golkar party, although the controlling party prior to 1999, no longer has the type of strong-hold previously exhibited over the citizens of Indonesia, according to the 2001 Country report.