Donysius Riza Pahlevi v. Attorney General of the United States

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-2391
___________
DONYSIUS RIZA PAHLEVI,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent
______________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
United States Department of Justice
Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA No. A95-837-929)
Immigration Judge: Honorable Charles M. Honeyman
_______________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
MAY 21, 2008
Before: RENDELL, GREENBERG AND VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges
(Filed: May 23, 2008)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
PER CURIAM
Donysius Riza Pahlevi petitions for review of a decision by the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing Pahlevi’s appeal of an immigration judge’s

-- 1 of 6 --

2
denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. For the following
reasons, we will deny the petition for review.
Pahlevi is a native and citizen of Indonesia. Pahlevi is ethnically Chinese and a
Catholic. Pahlevi also identifies himself as a homosexual. Pahlevi’s parents are both
deceased and his brother and sister live in Indonesia. On August 28, 2002, Pahlevi
applied for asylum and withholding of removal. The former Immigration and
Naturalization Service (“INS”) commenced removal proceedings on or about October 28,
2002, and charged Pahlevi as removable under INA § 237(a)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. §
1227(a)(1)(B), as an alien who remained in the United States for a time longer than
permitted.
In support of his application, Pahlevi claimed that he had suffered past persecution
and feared future persecution on the basis of his ethnicity, religion, and membership in a
particular social group (sexual orientation). Petitioner testified that as a child he was
verbally insulted by other children because of his Chinese background. A rock was
thrown at him and he still bears the resulting scar. In addition, Pahlevi’s family was
robbed twice. Both occasions were reported to the police, but they took no action in
response. In 1998, Pahlevi witnessed the robbery of a customer’s husband outside a salon
where Pahlevi worked. The customer’s husband was Chinese and was robbed by two
Indonesian Muslim men at knife-point. When the robbers saw Pahlevi, they told him to
keep quiet or he would die.

-- 2 of 6 --

3
Pahlevi further testified that he had been baptized Catholic and went to church on
a weekly basis. Pahlevi did not claim to have personally experienced any incidents of
harm on account of his religion. However, he did describe an incident where his brother-
in-law’s relative was on her way to a mass when a suitcase containing a bomb exploded
next to her and caused her a very serious injury.
In addition, Pahlevi testified that he is gay and wanted asylum because he can be
open about his sexuality in the United States and fears the discrimination he would face in
Indonesia. Pahlevi testified that when he told his brother and sister about his sexual
orientation, they did not respond favorably. Pahlevi confided to a few friends that he was
gay, including a close friend named Johnny who was also gay. Johnny owned the salon
where Pahlevi worked from 1998-2002. Johnny continues to live in Surabaya and
became openly gay before Pahlevi left the country. Although Johnny initially lost
customers when he became openly gay, most of those customers later returned. When
Pahlevi went shopping with Johnny, people insulted them regarding their sexual
orientation. Pahlevi claimed Johnny continues to be verbally insulted in Indonesia.
Pahlevi was also acquainted with another gay individual whom he called “Mr. A.”
Mr. A had a partner named Johnny (“Johnny II”). Mr. A told Pahlevi that Johnny II was
killed by homophobic individuals, but Pahlevi did not have independent knowledge that
this was true.
The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) rendered an oral decision finding Pahlevi removable

-- 3 of 6 --

4
as charged and denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Although
the IJ found that Pahlevi was credible, the IJ concluded that Pahlevi failed to show that
the harm he experienced rose to the level of persecution or that he faced a reasonable
possibility or clear probability of future persecution on account of one of the statutory
grounds. The BIA affirmed, reasoning that Pahlevi’s experiences “do not amount to past
persecution.” The BIA further concluded that the record (which included various articles
and the 2004 U.S. Department of State Country Report on Human Rights Practices and
the 2004 International Religious Freedom Report for Indonesia) “contains no evidence
demonstrating that the respondent faces an individualized risk of persecution or that there
is a pattern or practice of persecution.” Pahlevi timely petitioned for review of the BIA’s
order dismissing his appeal.
We exercise jurisdiction to review the BIA’s final order of removal under INA
§ 242(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). Because the BIA appears to have substantially relied on the
findings of the IJ, we have jurisdiction to review the decisions of both the BIA and the IJ.
See Xie v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 239, 242 (3d Cir. 2004).
Our review of these decisions is for substantial evidence, considering whether they
are “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record
considered as a whole.” Balasubramanrim v. INS, 143 F.3d 157, 161 (3d Cir. 1998)
(quotation omitted). The decisions must be affirmed “unless the evidence not only
supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it.” Zubeda v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 463, 471

-- 4 of 6 --

5
(3d Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted).
The BIA’s conclusion that Pahlevi failed to establish past persecution is supported
by substantial evidence in the record. Although the incidents described by Pahlevi
(including the name-calling during his childhood, the two robberies of his family, and the
verbal insults regarding his sexual orientation) are unfortunate, they do not rise to the
level of persecution. See Lie v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530, 536 (3d Cir. 2005) (holding that
an ethnic Chinese Indonesian’s account of two isolated criminal acts by unknown
assailants, which resulted only in the theft of some personal property and a minor injury,
was not sufficiently severe to constitute persecution). See also Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d
1233, 1243 (3d Cir. 1993) (“persecution is an extreme concept that does not include every
sort of treatment our society regards as offensive.”). Moreover, the other incidents that he
described were not personally directed to him, and do not demonstrate past persecution
under the circumstances presented here.
Nor has Pahlevi established a well-founded fear of future persecution. Pahlevi
failed to show that he would be individually singled out for persecution or that there is a
pattern or practice of persecution against Chinese Christians or homosexuals. See 8
C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(iii)(A). We have held that violence directed against Chinese
Christians in Indonesia “does not appear to be sufficiently widespread as to constitute a
pattern or practice,” Lie, 396 F.3d at 537, and Pahlevi failed to adduce evidence
warranting a contrary conclusion.

-- 5 of 6 --

6
Finally, on appeal, Pahlevi contends that it is “clear from the administrative record
that homosexuals are persecuted in Indonesia,” and that the IJ and the BIA “ignored” this
“fact.” However, Pahlevi cites nothing in support of this bald assertion. In any event, the
record in this case does not compel the conclusion that there is a systemic, pervasive, or
organized persecution of homosexuals in Indonesia. See id. (discussing what constitutes
a pattern or practice of persecution). Further, as the IJ noted “there is insufficient
evidence of widespread targeting by -non-state actors that the government is unwilling or
unable to control”.
Because we conclude that Pahlevi failed to establish his eligibility for asylum, we
necessarily conclude that he has not satisfied the more stringent requirements for
withholding of removal. See Paripovic v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 240, 246 (3d Cir. 2005).
For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for review.

-- 6 of 6 --