Sugiarto Halim v. Eric Holder, Jr.
755 F.3d 506
7th Cir.2014Background
- Halim, an Indonesian national and ethnic Chinese who converted to Christianity (baptized 2005), overstayed a six-month U.S. visa obtained in 2000 and was placed in removal proceedings in 2005.
- He sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection claiming likely persecution in Indonesia because he is Chinese and Christian; he did not claim past persecution before the IJ as qualifying for a presumption of future persecution.
- Factual record: Halim described episodic discrimination (airport search/extortion, a threatening taxi driver, visitors demanding money and throwing rocks), witnessed but was not harmed in 1994 riots, and was abroad during the 1998 riots; his family and siblings continue to live and operate businesses in Medan.
- Country-condition evidence (U.S. State Department Human Rights and Religious Freedom Reports, news articles) showed incidents of religious/ethnic violence but also government efforts to promote tolerance and prosecute perpetrators; reports did not show systematic state-sponsored persecution.
- The IJ denied asylum (untimely), withholding of removal, and CAT relief; the BIA affirmed. Halim appealed only the withholding-of-removal denial to the Seventh Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Indonesia has a "pattern or practice" of persecuting ethnic Chinese such that Halim is entitled to withholding of removal as a member of that group | Halim: recent reports show ongoing discrimination and attacks against ethnic Chinese; conditions have changed since prior circuit decisions | Gov: country reports show improvements and government action; evidence does not show systematic, pervasive, or state‑tolerated campaign of severe harm | Denied — record lacks evidence of a state‑perpetuated, systematic effort to kill, imprison, or severely injure ethnic Chinese |
| Whether Indonesia has a "pattern or practice" of persecuting Christians so Halim faces likely future persecution for his faith | Halim: reports and incidents of attacks on churches demonstrate religiously motivated violence against Christians | Gov: violence largely by vigilante groups; government has taken measures to protect religious freedom and prosecute perpetrators | Denied — evidence shows government efforts and does not establish a pervasive, state‑tolerated pattern of persecution of Christians |
| Whether Halim faces an individualized likelihood of persecution as a Chinese Christian | Halim: personal experiences and proximity to past riots support a credible individualized risk | Gov: Halim was not personally targeted or harmed; incidents were isolated, and his family remains in Indonesia unharmed | Denied — petitioner failed to show specific, detailed facts making it more likely than not he would be singled out for persecution |
| Standard of review and burden to overturn BIA/IJ factual findings | Halim: challenges sufficiency of evidence under Salim and related precedent | Gov: BIA/IJ factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and should be upheld | Court: Affirmed — defer to BIA under Chevron for legal interpretations and substantial‑evidence review for factual findings; record not so compelling to overturn |
Key Cases Cited
- Salim v. Holder, 728 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2013) (explains pattern-or-practice and individualized‑risk frameworks for withholding relief)
- Elias‑Zacarias v. INS, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (standard for reviewing factual findings in asylum/withholding claims)
- Ingmantoro v. Mukasey, 550 F.3d 646 (7th Cir. 2008) (pattern‑or‑practice requires state‑perpetuated, systematic persecution)
- Ahmed v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 669 (7th Cir. 2006) (once pattern or practice is found, all group members are eligible; sets high threshold)
- Yi Xian Chen v. Holder, 705 F.3d 624 (7th Cir. 2013) (defines persecution and threat to life or freedom in withholding context)
- Bitsin v. Holder, 719 F.3d 619 (7th Cir. 2013) (private violence counts only if government complicit or unable/unwilling to prevent it)
- Kaharudin v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 619 (7th Cir. 2007) (past non‑targeted hostility and insults may not amount to persecution)
- Mitreva v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 761 (7th Cir. 2005) (applicant’s heavy burden to prove pattern or practice of persecution)
- Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182 (5th Cir. 2004) (contrasting example where civil unrest supported objective fear of persecution)
- Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (deference to agency interpretations when statute ambiguous)