
    Linda HERMANUS; Jeremy Christiano Sumanti, Petitioners v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF the UNITED STATES, Respondent.
    No. 05-5243.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Jan. 17, 2007.
    Opinion Filed: Jan. 24, 2007.
    James M. Tyler, Schubert, Bellwoar, Ca-hill & Quinn, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioners.
    Marion E. Guyton, Richard M. Evans, United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    BEFORE: McKEE, AMBRO and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:

Petitioner Linda Hermanus and her son are natives and citizens of Indonesia. They here petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Petitioners are ethnic Chinese Christians and maintain that they have been persecuted in Indonesia because of their religion and ethnicity.

The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found Hermanus’ testimony “credible.” App. at 26. She testified to the following: Hermanus is a lifetime resident of the Menado section of Indonesia where she is a successful professional architect. She does not claim that Christians, who comprise 80% of the population of Menado, have had any problems practicing their religion there and indicates that most Christians in Menado are ethnic Chinese and do not currently have serious problems. She fears, however, that the killings of Chinese Christians elsewhere in Indonesia will eventually spread to Menado. Neither she nor her Chinese Christian husband, who is a pastor of his church, have experienced serious problems in Menado in the past. The only personal harm Hermanus could cite as resulting from her religion and ethnicity were two occasions when a church-related organization of which she was a member was unable to lease space it wanted, and when her business was unable to successfully compete for large government contracts.

Based on this testimony, the IJ found that no “actions taken against [Hermanus] in the past would rise to the level of past persecution.” App. at 26. The IJ then concluded that “the core of [her] claim [was] that a situation which has never occurred in the past in Menado may indeed occur in the future leading [sic] her to be an individual ... who faces a reasonable possibility of future persecution on account of her race and/or religion....” App. at 28. While the IJ acknowledged that Hermanus might well have subjective concerns about the future should she return to Indonesia, after carefully reviewing the record regarding country conditions and conditions in Menado, he ultimately concluded that Hermanus had “not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that she faces a reasonable possibility of harm rising to the level of persecution ... on account of a statutory ground if she were to return to Indonesia.” App. at 32. The IJ then noted that “it necessarily followed] that the clear probability standard for withholding of removal had not been met as well.” Id. Finally, the IJ found that Hermanus had not shown it more likely than not that she would be tortured on her return. There is ample record support for these conclusions.

We will deny the petition for review essentially for the reasons set forth in the thorough and sensitive opinion of the IJ which was affirmed without opinion by the BIA.  