UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1022
DANIEL HARTONO,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-196-048)
Submitted: May 31, 2006 Decided: September 25, 2006
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
H. Raymond Fasano, MADEO & FASANO, New York, New York, for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M.
Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Kristin K. Edison, Office
of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Hartono, a native and citizen of Indonesia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding
of removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture.
Hartono claims substantial evidence supports the finding that there
is a pattern or practice in Indonesia of persecuting Chinese
Christians such as himself. We deny the petition for review.
An applicant has the burden of demonstrating his
eligibility for asylum. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2006); Gonahasa v.
INS, 181 F.3d 538, 541 (4th Cir. 1999). An applicant can establish
refugee status based on past persecution in his native country on
account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1) (2006).
“An applicant who demonstrates that he was the subject of past
persecution is presumed to have a well-founded fear of
persecution.” Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir.
2004). Without regard to past persecution, an alien can establish
a well-founded fear of persecution on a protected ground.
Ngarurih, 371 F.3d at 187. The well-founded fear of persecution
standard contains both a subjective and an objective component.
“An applicant may satisfy the subjective element by presenting
‘candid, credible, and sincere testimony demonstrating a genuine
fear of persecution.’” Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 201-02 (4th Cir.
- 2 -
1999) (quoting Berroteran-Melendez v. INS, 955 F.2d 1251, 1256 (9th
Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted)). The objective
element requires a showing of specific, concrete facts that would
lead a reasonable person in like circumstances to fear persecution.
Huaman-Cornelio v. Board of Immigration Appeals, 979 F.2d 995, 999
(4th Cir. 1992). An alien need not provide evidence “that there is
a reasonable possibility that he or she would be singled out
individually for persecution” if he or she establishes there is a
“pattern or practice in his country or her country of nationality”
of persecution of a group of similarly situated persons. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(2)(iii) (2005).
A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal is conclusive if supported by substantial
evidence on the record considered as a whole. INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Administrative findings of
fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be
compelled to decide to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)
(2000). We will reverse the Board “only if ‘the evidence presented
was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find
the requisite fear of persecution.’” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316,
325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Huaman-Cornelio, 979 F.2d at 999
(internal quotation marks omitted)).
We find the evidence does not compel a different result.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with
- 3 -
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 4 -