examining the record, it cannot be said that the BIA irrationally concluded that Sunarto presented no additional legal arguments or facts i injured. See Akhtar v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir.2005) (noting acts of violence against an asylum applicant’s family members may demonstrate that s/he has a well-founded fear of persecution if such acts are linked to persecution against the applicant). Moreover, Sunarto’s affidavit does not provide any new or additional incidents of persecution that Sunarto claims to have suffered. Mikhailevitch, 146 F.3d at 390. And, finally, Sunarto fails to refute the Country Reports or to offer evidence establishing that he has an individualized fear of future persecution in Indonesia. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1180-81 (9th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Put simply, the motion lacks any indication
holding that evidence of antichinese violence in indonesia did not support the petitioners claim that persecution would result from removal holding that absent a pattern of persecution linked to the applicant persecution of family members is insufficient to demonstrate a wellfounded fear of persecution holding that absent past persecution an alien can demonstrate eligibility for asylum based on a wellfounded fear of future persecution by demonstrating that he or she subjectively fears persecution and that this fear is objectively reasonable holding that petitioner an ethnic chinese christian from indonesia did not establish a wellfounded fear of future persecution in indonesia because she failed to demonstrate that she would be individually targeted for persecution and country reports indicate that religious discrimination and harassment of ethnic chinese have declined in previous years holding that such a report provided substantial evidence to support the conclusion that petitioner failed to demonstrate a wellfounded fear of future persecution