Opinion ID: 3028179
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Agus Prajoga

Text: Prajoga concedes that we lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s determination that he failed to demonstrate changed or extraordinary circumstances that would excuse his delay in filing for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D) and that our review is therefore limited to the denial of Prajoga’s other applications. See 8 U.S.C. § 11589(a)(3); Sukwanputra v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 627, 635 (3d Cir. 2006). In reviewing Prajoga’s claim for withholding of removal, the IJ found that the robberies against Prajoga in Indonesia did not rise to the level of persecution and that Prajoga failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he would suffer persecution if he returns to Indonesia. We find no error in the IJ’s conclusion that these incidents, although serious, do not amount to persecution. See Lie v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530, 536 6 (3d Cir. 2005) (finding that petitioner’s “account of two isolated criminal acts, perpetrated by unknown assailants, which resulted only in the theft of some personal property and a minor injury, is not sufficiently severe to be considered persecution”). “Persecution” includes “threats to life, confinement, torture, and economic restrictions so severe that they constitute a threat to life or freedom.” Kibinda v. Atty. Gen., 477 F.3d 113, 119 (3d Cir. 2007). “[P]ersecution refers only to ‘severe’ conduct and ‘does not encompass all treatment our society regards as unfair, unjust or even unlawful or unconstitutional.’ Id. (quoting Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d 1233, 1240 (3d Cir. 1993)). Since we find no basis to disturb the IJ’s finding that the harms Prajoga suffered do not amount to persecution, 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.