Filed: May 18, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-18-2007 Liong v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-1870 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007 Recommended Citation "Liong v. Atty Gen USA" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1088. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1088 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of
Summary: Opinions of the United 2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-18-2007 Liong v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-1870 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007 Recommended Citation "Liong v. Atty Gen USA" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1088. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1088 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of ..
More
Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-18-2007
Liong v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-1870
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Liong v. Atty Gen USA" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1088.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1088
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_______________
No: 06-1870
_______________
SUKAMATO MILLION LIONG,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent.
_______________
Petition for Review of a Final Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA No. A96-257-479)
Immigration Judge Donald V. Ferlise
_______________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 10, 2007
Before: RENDELL, JORDAN and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.
(Filed May 18, 2007)
_______________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_______________
JORDAN, Circuit Judge.
Sukamato Million Liong, a citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the final
order of removal by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his application
for withholding of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). For the reasons that
follow, we will deny the petition.
I.
Liong, a native Indonesian of Chinese descent, entered the United States as a
visitor in February 2001. He remained in the United States after the expiration of his
visitor status, and on February 7, 2003, he applied for asylum. Liong thereafter received a
notice to appear in removal proceedings. At his hearing before the Immigration Judge
(“IJ”), Liong conceded that he was removable, that his asylum application was untimely,
and that he was applying only for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”).
Liong contended that he feared persecution in Indonesia because he is Catholic
and ethnically Chinese. He presented no evidence that he had ever been persecuted. He
testified that, while he was in Indonesia, he did not have any problems because of his
religion or ethnicity, although there were some “minor problems” in his neighborhood in
Indonesia. His wife, children, and seven siblings remaining in Indonesia have continued
to attend church. He explained that he was afraid to return to Indonesia because “of the
existence of terrorists,” rumors about Muslim extremists, and church closings in various
places in Indonesia.
The IJ denied Liong’s applications for withholding of removal and relief under the
CAT. After reviewing Liong’s testimony, the IJ concluded that Liong and his family had
2
never been persecuted as a result of their ethnicity or religion. Regarding Liong’s
testimony about church closings, the IJ noted that, according to that testimony, those
churches were a nine hour automobile ride away from where Liong lived. Liong and his
family were not prevented from attending church. Finally, the IJ considered the most
recent State Department reports relating to religiously motivated violence in Indonesia,
but noted that those incidents occurred in parts of the country far from where Liong lived.
According to the IJ, there was no evidence in the record that the Indonesian government
was unwilling or unable to protect Christians and ethnic Chinese. Thus, the IJ concluded
that Liong had failed to prove that there was a clear probability that he would be
persecuted on his return to Indonesia, and denied his applications for withholding of
removal and relief under the CAT.
Liong appealed to the BIA, challenging only the denial of withholding of removal.
On February 9, 2006, the BIA dismissed Liong’s appeal, concluding that “[t]he record
supports the Immigration Judge’s determination that [Liong] failed to meet his burden of
proving that, if he is removed to Indonesia, it is more likely than not that he will be
persecuted on account of his Chinese ethnicity or Catholic religion.”
We have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s final decision pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §
1252(a)(1).1 Where, as here, the BIA defers to the IJ’s determination, we review the
1
Because Liong did not appeal the IJ’s decision regarding his CAT application, we may
not review that decision. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).
3
decision of the IJ. Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542, 549 n.2 (3d Cir. 2001). The IJ’s
factual determinations must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence, INS v. Elias-
Zacarias,
502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992), and “can only be reversed if the evidence is such that
a reasonable factfinder would be compelled to conclude otherwise.” Chavarria v.
Gonzales,
446 F.3d 508, 515 (3d Cir. 2006).
II.
To be entitled to withholding of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), Liong
must establish that there is a “clear probability” that he will be persecuted on account of a
protected ground on his return to Indonesia. INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 424 (1984).
“The question under that [clear probability] standard is whether it is more likely than not
that the alien will be subject to persecution.”
Id. Liong may meet this burden by showing
that in Indonesia there is “a pattern or practice of persecution of a group of persons
similarly situated” to him on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(2).
“[T]o constitute a ‘pattern or practice,’ the persecution of the group must be systemic,
pervasive, or organized . . . [and must be] committed by the government or forces the
government is either unable or unwilling to control.” Lie v. Ashcroft,
396 F.3d 530, 537
(3d Cir. 2005).
Liong argues that the IJ failed to consider the evidence of religious intolerance in
Indonesia and that the evidence, properly considered, demonstrates a pattern or practice
of persecution in Indonesia on account of religion. Liong points to the 2004 International
4
Religious Freedom Report for Indonesia prepared by the United States Department of
State (the “2004 Report”), which describes attacks on churches and other interreligious
violence in parts of Indonesia. According to the report, “[a]lthough the Government
made significant efforts to reduce interreligious violence, such violence occurred . . .
[and,] [o]n some occasions, the Government tolerated the abuse of religious freedom by
private groups or failed to punish perpetrators.” The State Department’s 2003 Country
Report on Human Rights Practices for Indonesia also indicates that the Indonesian
government at times failed to protect the fundamental rights of minority groups, including
religious minorities. According to Liong, this evidence shows that there is a pattern or
practice of persecution of Christians in Indonesia.
Contrary to Liong’s assertion, the record shows that the IJ did consider the State
Department reports. The IJ concluded that the violence was not sufficiently widespread
or conducted with sufficient government involvement to qualify as persecution.
According to the 2004 Report, the worst of the interreligious fighting appeared to have
occurred in particular regions of the country, Central Sulawesi and the Moluccas.
Importantly, “[s]ome notable advances in interreligious tolerance and cooperation
occurred during the period covered by the [2004 Report]. Government officials together
with Muslim and Christian community leaders continued to work together to diffuse
tensions in conflict areas, particularly in Central Sulawesi and the Moluccas.” Id. Thus,
while there is evidence of some instances of government tolerance for religious violence,
5
the 2004 Report supports the conclusion that the Indonesian government is, on the whole,
trying to prevent interreligious conflict. Therefore, while we would not go so far as to say
there is no evidence of problems in Indonesia with the policing of ethnic and religious
violence, there is support for the IJ’s ultimate conclusion that the violence was not
sufficiently widespread or conducted with sufficient government involvement to qualify
as persecution.
III.
Liong does not claim that he and his family have been the target of persecution in
Indonesia. Thus, his failure to demonstrate a pattern or practice of persecution means that
he has failed to prove that it is more likely than not that he will be persecuted on returning
to Indonesia. We will therefore deny his petition for review.
6
