## Facts

- Imelda Laurencia Lie, her husband, and their minor son were ethnically Chinese, Christian citizens of Indonesia seeking asylum and withholding of removal in the United States.
- Lie relied on country-conditions evidence describing anti-Chinese and anti-Christian violence in Indonesia in the late 1990s, including widespread 1998 riots and attacks.
- Lie alleged two incidents as past harm:
  - In 1997, several native Indonesian men robbed Lie’s husband at his store, threatened him with a knife, and used an anti-Chinese epithet.
  - In 1998, Lie was robbed while in her car after men broke a window; she believed the attack was due to her Chinese ethnicity, but the incident involved no explicit ethnic or religious remarks.
- Lie asserted fear of future harm if returned to Indonesia based on violence and discrimination against Chinese Christians.
- An Immigration Judge denied asylum and withholding of removal; the BIA affirmed.
- Lie also sought protection under the Convention Against Torture, but she did not develop that argument on appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether the two robberies and related threats constituted past persecution on account of a protected ground.
2. Whether Lie established a subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable well-founded fear of future persecution.
3. Whether the record compelled a finding of a pattern or practice of persecution against ethnic Chinese Christians in Indonesia.
4. Whether Lie met the higher “more likely than not” standard for withholding of removal.
5. Whether the CAT claim was preserved for appellate review.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit denied the petition for review and upheld the denial of asylum and withholding of removal.
- Substantial evidence supported the agency’s finding that the incidents were isolated criminal acts and did not rise to the level of persecution.
- Substantial evidence supported the agency’s conclusion that Lie failed to show the robberies were motivated by ethnicity or religion rather than ordinary crime.
- The court upheld the BIA’s determination that the evidence did not establish a pattern or practice of persecution of ethnic Chinese Christians in Indonesia.
- Because Lie failed to meet the asylum standard, she necessarily failed to meet the higher standard for withholding of removal.
- The CAT claim was waived because it was not substantively argued on appeal.

## Legal Principles

- “Persecution” requires harm beyond unfair or unlawful treatment; isolated criminal acts with limited injury ordinarily do not meet the threshold without more severe or systematic targeting.
- An asylum applicant must prove a nexus between the harm and a protected ground; opportunistic crime, even with discriminatory language, may be insufficient on this record.
- A well-founded fear of future persecution must be subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable; country reports may be relied on heavily for the objective component.
- A “pattern or practice” of persecution requires persecution that is systemic, pervasive, or organized, not sporadic or temporally concentrated violence that later subsides.
- Withholding of removal requires showing it is more likely than not the applicant will be persecuted; failure to satisfy asylum generally defeats withholding on the same facts.
- Issues not meaningfully briefed on appeal are waived absent extraordinary circumstances.

## Conclusion

The court held that two robberies against an ethnically Chinese Christian family in Indonesia, even in the context of earlier unrest, did not compel a finding of past persecution or an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution, and the record did not establish a current pattern or practice of persecution; asylum and withholding were properly denied, and CAT relief was waived.


Lie v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530 (3d Cir. 2005)