in that country because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). Withholding of removal requires a “clear probability” of persecution. Toussaint v. Attorney Gen., 455 F.3d 409, 413 (3d Cir.2006). The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that persecution will be “committed either by the government or by forces that the government is either unable or unwilling to control.” Mulanga v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 123, 132 (3d Cir.2003). Where violence is “primarily wrought by fellow citizens and not the result of governmental action or acquiescence,” there is no pattern of persecution sufficient to support the granting of withholding of removal. Lie v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530, 537-38 (3d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, to obtain relief under the CAT, a
holding that petitioners who apply for withholding of removal must establish that a statutorily protected ground was a reason for their persecution 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 absent solid support in the record for the petitioners assertion that he would be subjected to persecution his fear was speculative at best holding that evidence of antichinese violence in indonesia did not support the petitioners claim that persecution would result from removal holding that the denial of petitioners appeal to the bia would have put a reasonable person in the petitioners position on notice that something was wrong with his attorneys preparation for the removal hearing