
    Yanuarius Dedyson USBOKO, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent
    No. 15-60811 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed March 9, 2017
    Donglai Yang, Law Office of Donglai Yang, New Orleans, LA, for Petitioner
    William Clark Minick, Trial Attorney, Gerald Mark Alexander, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Yanuarius Dedyson Usboko, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding the denial of withholding of removal. We review for substantial evidence. See Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under this standard, reversal is improper unless we decide not only that the evidence supports a contrary conclusion, but also that the evidence compels it. Id.) see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

Usboko argues that he made the requisite showing of past persecution on account of his religion through testimony showing that in 1998, he and other churchgoers were beaten and referring generally to other incidents of violence. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Usboko failed to satisfy the burden of proving that he has suffered past persecution on account of his religion. This court has found no persecution under circumstances more dire than those experienced by Usboko. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 304 (5th Cir. 1997); see also Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 187-88 (5th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the evidence does not compel the conclusion that Usboko has shown past persecution on account of religion or otherwise shown that it is more likely than not that his life or freedom would be threatened by persecution on account of religion in Indonesia. See. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir. 2002). We DENY the petition of review. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     