Ramdani

MEMORANDUM *

Mochamad Ramdani and his wife Nur Laela, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their request for asylum, withholding of deportation, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 , and review the BIA’s decision for' substantial evidence. Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir.2000). Because the BIA “decline[d] to adopt the adverse credibility finding,” we accept Ramdani’s testimony as true. 2 See Kalubi v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1134, 1137 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition.

The BIA’s finding that Ramdani failed to establish past persecution is supported by substantial evidence. Ramdani has not demonstrated that the police violence at two demonstrations he attended was targeted toward him individually, see Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 967 (9th Cir.1998), nor that it was motivated by any political opinion imputed to him by the police, see Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1489 (9th Cir.1997). Instead, substantial evidence suggests that the police were responding to rioting and violence by…

dissenting in part.

While I agree that Ramdani has not shown that he is entitled to withholding of removal or relief under the Convention Against Torture, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that he is ineligible for a discretionary grant of asylum. I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority’s disposition.

The evidence compels a finding that Ramdani has a well-founded fear of future persecution for asylum purposes. See Al-Harbi v. INS, 242 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir.2001) (noting that, to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, “even a ten percent chance of persecution may establish a well-founded fear”). Ramdani’s objectively reasonable fear is supported by the fact that he was captured, hit, and threatened with death by undercover military agents. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 935 (9th Cir.2000). Furthermore, the military knew who he was and took a special interest after identifying him as an active opponent of the ruling government. Mendoza Perez v. INS, 902 F.2d 760, 761 (9th Cir.1990). The reasonableness of Ramdani’s fear is also supported by the military’s frequent and threatening visits to his home, which began very shortly after he was identified. See Artiga…