Kiatdiyoso Jananto v. Attorney General of the United States; Department of Homeland Security

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_______________
No: 06-2730
_______________
KIATDIYOSO JANANTO,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES;
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
Respondents
_______________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
United States Department of Justice
Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA No. A96-251-988)
Immigration Judge: Hon. Miriam K. Mills
_______________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
November 8, 2007
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, AMBRO and JORDAN, Circuit Judges
(Filed: November 29, 2007)
_______________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_______________
JORDAN, Circuit Judge.

-- 1 of 7 --

2
Kiatdiyoso Jananto petitions this Court for review of the order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his requests for withholding of removal and for
relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). For the reasons
discussed below, we will deny Jananto’s petition.
I.
Jananto is an ethnically Chinese Christian who came to the United States from his
native country of Indonesia on August 18, 2001. He was admitted into the United States
on a non-immigrant visa with permission to remain in the country until February 17,
2002. He remained here after his visa expired. A notice to appear for removal
proceedings was issued to Jananto on March 21, 2003.
At his hearing before the Immigration Judge (IJ), Jananto conceded that he was
removable. He requested withholding of removal, relief under the CAT and,
alternatively, voluntary departure. During removal proceedings Jananto maintained that
he feared for his safety if he were to return to Indonesia based upon a pattern and practice
of persecution towards Chinese Christians in that country.
In support of his claim, Jananto submitted, among other things, an affidavit and
two government reports that purportedly demonstrate widespread acts of violence against
Chinese Christians in Indonesia and their places of worship. Jananto’s affidavit alleges
several events, spanning a period of over thirty years, which he claims support his fear of
persecution. The affidavit describes Jananto’s growing up in a country plagued by social

-- 2 of 7 --

3
discrimination against those of Chinese descent. Jananto claims that in 1969 he was
“beaten up” by Indonesians while leaving school, and that his arm was broken. He also
mentions the dangerous conditions in Indonesia resulting from race riots in Jakarta in
1998 and a 1999 clash in Ambon between Christians and Moslems. According to
Jananto, these incidents, and reports of threatened attacks by Moslems on churches,
prompted the Indonesian government to provide police protection on at least one occasion
for his church in Jakarta. Finally, Jananto describes an incident in 2000 where he and a
friend were confronted by a group of motorists that stopped their vehicle and threatened
them based on their religion. According to Jananto, the foregoing events led to his
decision to move to the United States in 2001. However, his family, including his mother
and seven siblings, remain in Indonesia.
The IJ denied Jananto’s application for withholding of removal and relief under
the CAT, but granted Jananto voluntary departure. In an oral opinion, the IJ concluded
that Jananto’s affidavit described only isolated acts of violence and general discrimination
against Chinese Christians, all of which does not rise to the level of persecution. The IJ
found that Jananto’s statements regarding the government’s protection of churches in
Jakarta during the 1999 religious conflict in Ambon served to contradict his alleged fear
of persecution. The IJ also concluded that the government reports offered into evidence
failed to establish a pattern or practice of persecution, as the violent acts were not
widespread but were concentrated in areas outside of Jananto’s home of Jakarta. In

-- 3 of 7 --

4
addition, the IJ noted that those reports depicted improving conditions in Indonesia.
Furthermore, the IJ held that the fact that Jananto’s family has safely remained in
Indonesia significantly weakens his claim that he will suffer persecution if he returns. In
sum, the IJ concluded that Jananto had failed to demonstrate his eligibility for
withholding of removal or relief under the CAT, but she granted voluntary departure,
without opposition from the government.
On appeal, the BIA affirmed, without opinion, the decision of the IJ. On May 17,
2006, Jananto filed with this Court a petition to review the BIA decision and a motion for
stay of removal. On September 6, 2006, we denied Jananto’s motion to stay for failure to
show a likelihood of success on the merits.
II.
We have jurisdiction over a petition for review from a final order of the BIA
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). Because the BIA affirmed the decision of the IJ
without opinion, we review the decision of the IJ. Zhang v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 150, 155
(3d Cir. 2005). The IJ’s factual determinations must be upheld if supported by substantial
evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992), and can only be reversed if
“any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. §
1252(b)(4)(B).

-- 4 of 7 --

Both Petitioner’s Brief and the oral decision of the IJ employ the “well-founded fear”1
standard, which is the applicable standard for claims for asylum. The clear probability
standard is the correct standard for claims for withholding of removal. Stevic, 467 U.S. at
430. However, because the IJ concluded that Jananto was unable to demonstrate a well-
founded fear, Jananto would necessarily be unable to meet the higher standard of showing
a clear probability of persecution. See Janusiak v. INS, 947 F.2d 46, 47 (3d Cir. 1991).
5
III.
On appeal, Jananto argues that the IJ erred by denying his requests for withholding
of removal or relief under the CAT. To be entitled to withholding of removal pursuant to
8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), Jananto must demonstrate that there is a “clear probability” that he
will be persecuted on account of a protected ground on his return to Indonesia. INS v.1
Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 424 (1984). “The question under that [clear probability] standard is
whether it is more likely than not that the alien would be subject to persecution.” Id. To
qualify for relief under the CAT, Jananto must establish “that it is more likely than not
that he ... would be tortured if removed” to Indonesia. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). Jananto
argues that the record demonstrates a pattern or practice of persecution of Chinese
Christians in Indonesia and that such evidence is sufficient to support his applications for
withholding of removal and relief under the CAT.
To support the existence of a pattern or practice of persecution, Jananto primarily
relies on two reports prepared by the U.S. Department of State, including the 2004
International Religious Freedom Report on Indonesia (the “Religious Freedom Report”)
and the 2003 Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Indonesia (the “Country

-- 5 of 7 --

Apparently, Jananto provided Internet articles, a church letter, and other documents2
discussing religious relations in Indonesia, which are not included in Petitioner’s
Appendix on this appeal; however, the IJ found that this evidence, coupled with the
government reports, supported a finding of “improved relations between the government
and ethnic Chinese” in Indonesia, rather than a pattern or practice of persecution.
6
Report”). The IJ considered these reports, and other background evidence relating to the2
current conditions in Indonesia, and found that they did not establish Jananto’s claims for
relief.
We do not agree with Jananto that the Religious Freedom Report and the Country
Report compel us to conclude that there is a pattern or practice of persecution in
Indonesia. “[T]o constitute a pattern or practice, the persecution of the group must be
systemic, pervasive, or organized” and must be “committed by the government or forces
the government is either unable or unwilling to control.” Lie v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530,
537 (3d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, substantial
evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Jananto failed to establish a pattern or practice
of persecution in Indonesia. As the IJ noted, while the Country Report cites to continuing
problems concerning the government’s ability to protect the human rights of its citizens, it
also suggests some improvements. Similarly, although the Religious Freedom Report
notes several conflicts between Christians and Muslims in Indonesia, it concludes that
“[m]ost of the population enjoyed a high degree of religious freedom,” and it provides
several examples of government efforts to quell interreligious violence. The violence
described in the reports appears to be isolated rather than pervasive. The IJ was also

-- 6 of 7 --

Jananto appears to take issue with the IJ’s determination that he had not suffered past3
persecution. However, the IJ’s determination that the isolated events described in
Jananto’s affidavit do not rise to the level of persecution was not erroneous. See Lie, 396
F.3d at 536.
7
correct in observing that the fact that Jananto’s family has remained in Indonesia
unharmed since his departure serves to diminish the reasonableness of his fear of
persecution.3
IV.
Jananto has not demonstrated that it is more likely than not that he will be
persecuted upon his return to Indonesia. Additionally, Jananto offers no evidence that he
will be tortured upon return to his native country. We have considered the remainder of
Jananto’s arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons we will deny
his petition for review.

-- 7 of 7 --