[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
SEPT 27, 2006
No. 06-11808 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
Agency No. A96-169-818
PETER VALENTINO LAM,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(September 27, 2006
Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner Peter Valentino Lam (“Lam”) seeks appellate review of a decision
by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), affirming a decision by an
Immigration Judge (“IJ”), denying Lam’s application for withholding of removal
under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) and the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
Lam, a native of Indonesia, alleges that he has a reasonable fear of
persecution on the basis of his Chinese ethnicity and Christian faith, both of which
are a minority in Indonesia. Lam primarily bases his fears on two past incidents of
abuse that occurred while he resided in Indonesia. In the first instance, Lam alleged
that following a motorcycle accident, he was beaten by a crowd and then taken to a
police station and detained for half a day before being fined and released. Lam also
claimed that on one occasion, following disturbances by a violent Muslim mob, his
office was broken into and he was beaten. Lam also refers to State Department and
Amnesty International reports in attempting to establish that Indonesia is unsafe for
minorities. In reviewing his claim, the IJ determined that (1) Lam’s testimony
regarding these incidents was not completely credible; (2) that Lam had failed to
establish government causation or acquiescence in such harassment; and (3) that
the record did not demonstrate that the problems allegedly faced by minorities
rose to the level of persecution under the INA, or to torture under CAT. The BIA
affirmed these findings.
Standard of Review
We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4). Judicial
review of claims under the Convention Against Torture are heard as part of the
review of a final order of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 8 C.F.R. §
208.18(e).
We will review only the BIA’s decision, but to the extent that this decision
expressly adopts the IJ’s opinion and reasoning, we will review the IJ’s decision.
Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). In examining the
decision, the administrative findings of fact are conclusive on the Court unless any
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. §
1252(b)(4)(B). We are bound to affirm the IJ’s decision as long as it is supported
by substantial evidence and may only reverse a factual finding when the record
compels it. Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir.2004) (en banc),
cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1035, 125 S. Ct. 2245, 161 L. Ed. 2d 1063 (2005).
Discussion
To be eligible for withholding of removal under the INA, an applicant must
demonstrate that there is a clear probability of future persecution on account of
race, religion, ethnicity, political opinion or social group. 8 U.S.C. §
1231(b)(3)(A); I.N.S. v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 429, 104 S. Ct. 2489, 2501, 81 L. Ed.
2d. 321 (1984). This requirement can be met by demonstrating either the threat of
future persecution based on a protected ground, or by showing the existence of past
persecution on one of those grounds, which creates a rebuttable presumption of
future persecution. Tan v. U.S. Att’y. Gen., 446 F.3d 1369, 1375 (11th Cir. 2006).
To qualify as persecution, the alleged activities must rise beyond the level of
harassment and must be the result of action by government officials or non-
governmental groups that the government cannot control. Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y.
Gen., 392 F.3d 434, 437 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). To establish the right to
withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture, an applicant must
show that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured upon return. 8
C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(2)(I). Torture, for withholding purposes, is defined as either
physical or mental pain or suffering intentionally inflicted on someone at the
“instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other
person acting in an official capacity.” 8 C F.R. § 208.18(a)(1).
We find that there is substantial evidence supporting the IJ’s conclusions in
this case. Lam relies primarily on two incidents of violence against his person in
support of his claim, neither of which were severe enough to require medical
attention. While such events are unfortunate, these isolated incidents during an
extended period of time do not rise to the level of either torture or persecution,
which is also an “extreme concept.” Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y. Gen. 401 F.3d 1226,
1231 (11th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). The decision below also drew support
from State Department reports on Indonesia, which suggested that while human
4
rights issues remain a problem in the country, they appear to be primarily incidents
of harassment or discrimination, rather than the kind of persecution that would
mandate relief under the INA or CAT.
Accordingly, we conclude that the decisions of the BIA and the IJ contain no
reversible error and affirm the decision below.
AFFIRMED.
5