Case: 12-15277 Date Filed: 05/20/2013 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-15277
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A096-144-586
SIOK YIEN GE,
HENDRI ARDIAN,
ANGELA CHRISTINA ARDIAN,
JAMES TIMOTHY,
Petitioners,
versus
US ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(May 20, 2013)
Before MARCUS, WILSON and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-15277 Date Filed: 05/20/2013 Page: 2 of 5
Siok Yen Ge, an Indonesian citizen, seeks review of the order of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of
asylum pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 208(a), 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a), withholding of removal under INA § 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3),
and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), 8 C.F.R. §
208.16(c). On appeal, Ge argues that she has shown an individualized risk of harm
should she return to Indonesia, based on her Chinese heritage and Christian
religion. After thoroughly reviewing the briefs, we deny Ge’s petition.
In a petition for review of a BIA decision, we review factual determinations
under the substantial evidence test. Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341,
1350–51 (11th Cir. 2009). Under the substantial evidence test, we draw every
reasonable inference from the evidence in favor of the BIA’s decision, and reverse
a finding of fact only if the record compels reversal. Id. at 1351. The fact that the
record may support a contrary conclusion is insufficient to reverse. Id. We review
the BIA’s decision as the final judgment, unless the BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s
decision. Id. at 1350. Where the BIA expressly adopts the IJ’s decision, we will
review the decisions of both the BIA and the IJ. Id.
An applicant for asylum must meet the INA’s definition of a refugee. INA
§ 208(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). The INA defines a refugee as:
2
Case: 12-15277 Date Filed: 05/20/2013 Page: 3 of 5
any person who is outside of any country of such person’s nationality
. . . and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or
unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country
because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on
account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion.
INA § 101(a)(42)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A).
To show eligibility for asylum, an applicant may satisfy her burden of proof
in either of two ways: First, she may show that she was persecuted in the past in
her home country on a protected ground. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d
1226, 1230–31 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Second, an applicant may meet her
burden by establishing that she has a well-founded fear that she will be persecuted
in the future on account of a protected ground. Id. at 1231. She must demonstrate
that her well-founded fear of future persecution is subjectively genuine and
objectively reasonable. Id. The applicant must present specific, detailed facts that
show a good reason to fear that she will be singled out for persecution. Id.
However, the applicant does not need to prove that she would be singled out for
persecution if she proves she is a member of a group that is subjected to a pattern
or practice of persecution in her country of nationality. See Kazemzadeh, 577 F.3d
at 1352. When considering whether the applicant has established a pattern or
practice of persecution in her home country, the BIA is entitled to rely heavily on
the U.S. State Department’s Country Reports. Id. at 1354.
3
Case: 12-15277 Date Filed: 05/20/2013 Page: 4 of 5
Persecution is an “extreme concept” and requires “more than a few isolated
incidents of verbal harassment or intimidation.” Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1231
(internal quotation marks omitted). Drawing every reasonable inference from the
evidence in favor of the judgment, the record supports the BIA and IJ’s judgment
that Ge has not demonstrated past persecution. Ge recounts being segregated at
school, being inappropriately touched and spoken to on multiple occasions, and
experiencing discrimination. She also testified as to the fear she and her family felt
during riots and strained interactions between her family and ethnic Indonesians.
While these incidents certainly amount to harassment and discrimination, the
record does not compel a finding that they meet the “extreme” threshold level of
persecution. See id. at 1231.
The record also does not compel a finding that Ge has a well-founded fear of
future persecution if she returns to Indonesia. While Ge’s statements support a
well-founded fear for future harassment of the type previously experienced, she
has not carried her burden to show that she would be singled out for “extreme”
incidents that constitute persecution. See id. The U.S. State Department’s Country
Report from Indonesia states that the ethnic Chinese population plays a major role
in the Indonesian economy and is increasingly participating in politics, an
indication that any future threat is diminishing. Accordingly, the record does not
4
Case: 12-15277 Date Filed: 05/20/2013 Page: 5 of 5
compel us to determine that Ge demonstrated past persecution or a well-founded
fear of future persecution.
To qualify for withholding of removal and CAT relief, an applicant must
establish standards more stringent than those for asylum eligibility. Zheng v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 451 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). Because Ge could
not prove her entitlement to asylum relief, she necessarily failed to demonstrate
that it was more likely than not that she would be persecuted or that she would be
subjected to severe pain or suffering by, or with the acquiescence of, government
officials in Indonesia. See id.
For the foregoing reasons, we deny Ge’s petition.
PETITION DENIED.
5