Opinion ID: 3014330
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Raharjo’s Appeal

Text: We must affirm the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal if substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Raharjo failed to prove past persecution or torture (so as to establish a rebuttable presumption regarding future threats to his life and freedom) or a clear probability (more likely than not) that he would be persecuted or tortured if returned to Indonesia. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). We can only overturn the IJ’s decision if “the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find” in his favor. Id. at 483–84. The IJ found that Raharjo had experienced harassment and discrimination in Indonesia that did not rise to the level of persecution. While the violence and harassment against ethnic Chinese, starting in M ay 1998 and concentrated in Djakarta, is welldocumented in the record, the IJ noted that Raharjo was in the United States, not Indonesia, when the riots broke out in May 1998, nor was his family in Djakarta at that time. Furthermore, the only evidence of violence against Raharjo—a 1993 altercation 8 with a store cashier4 —was reasonably characterized by the IJ as an incident of harassment and discrimination that was heightened to violence by Raharjo’s own hand. The IJ also found that Raharjo had not demonstrated a clear probability of persecution should he return to Indonesia. This is also a reasonable finding, in light of evidence that Raharjo’s family in Indonesia—including his wife, child, mother, stepfather, and siblings—was not harmed during the May 1998 riots and has remained in Indonesia without incident. While the IJ acknowledged that Indonesia faced “ethnic and religious altercations and what might even be perceived as rising at times to civil warfare,” he did not accept this as evidence of a particular threat to Raharjo should he return to Indonesia. In his petition Raharjo argues that this was error because he is not required to show that he would be singled out for persecution, as long as there is a pattern or practice of persecution against ethnic Chinese in Indonesia. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(i)(A)–(B). But Raharjo did not show, and the IJ did not find, that, in general, Chinese in Indonesia were persecuted. So the IJ reasonably did not infer that it was more likely than not Raharjo would be persecuted as well.