Filed: Aug. 17, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-17-2007 Samu Samu v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-2687 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007 Recommended Citation "Samu Samu v. Atty Gen USA" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 574. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/574 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opini
Summary: Opinions of the United 2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-17-2007 Samu Samu v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-2687 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007 Recommended Citation "Samu Samu v. Atty Gen USA" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 574. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/574 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinio..
More
Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
8-17-2007
Samu Samu v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-2687
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Samu Samu v. Atty Gen USA" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 574.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/574
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 06-2687
ROBERT SAMU SAMU,
Petitioner,
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
U.S. Department of Justice
BIA File No. A96-259-960
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 18, 2007
BEFORE McKEE, FISHER, and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: August 17, 2007)
___________________
OPINION
___________________
McKEE, Circuit Judge,
Robert Samu Samu petitions for review of a final Order of Removal by the Board of
Immigration Appeals, (“BIA”). Samu contends that the BIA erred in not granting him relief
under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) or withholding of removal
1
pursuant to Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) §241(b)(3)(A). For the reasons stated
below, we will deny the petition for review.
I. Facts & Procedure
Since we write for the benefit of the parties, we will forego a lengthy discussion of the
facts and procedural history of this case. We will only briefly discuss the facts of the case as they
are pertinent to the issues. Samu is a citizen of Indonesia and is of Chinese descent.
Additionally, Samu is a practicing Christian. Samu was temporarily authorized to stay in the
United States from November 9, 1998 until May 7, 1999. Samu stayed beyond that date and
subsequently, removal proceedings proceeded against him on or about April 8, 2003.
Before the Immigration Judge (“IJ”), Samu requested withholding of removal and relief
under CAT, or in the alternative, voluntary departure. Samu also requested asylum, but was
statutorily ineligible for that relief because his application was time-barred. Samu presented
testimony regarding several instances of violence and threats of violence against his family
while in Indonesia. The first of these incidents occurred in 1986 when a group of native
Indonesians beat his father, set fire to his home and family’s store, and killed the family dog.
The second major incident occurred in 1996, when Samu’s little sister was kidnaped by a native
Indonesian man. The third and final incident occurred while Samu was living in the United
States in the summer of 1999. Riots broke out in his home of Ambon, which resulted in the
death of Samu’s grandmother and the amputation of his cousin’s leg.1 After hearing his
testimony, the IJ denied relief, but allowed voluntary departure. The IJ determined that the
discrimination and prior incidents of violence were inadequate to establish a clear probability
1
Although Samu stated that the riot was the result of tension between Christians and
Muslims, there is also evidence that the source of the riot was economic unrest.
2
that the he would be harmed if returned to Indonesia. On appeal, the BIA summarily affirmed
the decision of the IJ.
II. Jurisdiction & Standard of Review
We have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal of the BIA under 8 U.S.C. §
1252(a)(1). See Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542, 547 (3d Cir. 2001). Where, as here, the BIA
defers to the IJ’s decision and does not render its own opinion, we review the decision of the IJ
as the final agency order.
Id. at 549 n.2; See also Gao v. Ashcroft,
299 F.3d 266, 271 (3d Cir.
2002). We review the IJ’s decision for substantial evidence; see, e.g., Lie v. Ashcroft,
396 F.3d
530, 534 n.3 (3d Cir. 2005), we reverse only 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); see also INS v. Elias-Zacarias,
502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
III. Discussion
Samu argues that the IJ erred by denying him withholding of removal and relief under the
CAT based upon his experiences in Indonesia and the hostile climate in the country towards
Chinese Christians. In order to gain withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A),2
Samu must prove that there is a “clear probability” that he will be persecuted if he is removed to
Indonesia. INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 424 (1984). “The question under that standard is whether
it is more likely than not that the alien would be subject to persecution.”
Id. “Persecution”
requires “threats to life, confinement, torture, and economic restrictions so severe that they
constitute a threat to life or freedom.” Fatin v. INS,
12 F.3d 1233, 1240 (3d Cir. 1993). Yet,
2
8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) states, “[T]he Attorney General may not remove an alien to a
country if the Attorney General decides that the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened in
that country because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
group, or political opinion.”
3
persecution “does not encompass all treatment that our society regards as unfair, unjust, or even
unlawful or unconstitutional.” Id. The IJ concluded that Samu had failed to meet his burden for
establishing eligibility for withholding of removal. Upon review, we can find no evidence
compelling us to rule otherwise. Therefore, we will deny the petition.
Although the Court is sympathetic with the tribulations that Samu and his family have
endured, we do not believe that the evidence presented proves past or future persecution. This
Court has previously acknowledged in Lie v. Ashcroft that “[r]andom, isolated criminal acts
perpetrated by anonymous thieves do not establish persecution.” 396 F.3d at 536 (quoting
Gormley v. Ashcroft,
364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2004)). Samu fails to show how the attacks
on his family were motivated by religious or ethnic intolerance. He also has not established that
the acts he relies upon for his claim were perpetrated by agents of the Indonesian Government or
that the Government acquiesced in the acts he complains of. The only evidence offered was the
ethnicity of the attackers and an ethnic slur during the earliest attack. Yet, Samu also
acknowledged that the attack on his father was due in part to the family’s success. Absent a
nexus to Samu’s religion or ethnicity, we are not compelled to view these actions as rising to the
level of persecution, even if he had presented evidence of governmental acquiescence.
Samu’s argument is further undercut by three other factors. First, Samu remained in
Indonesia and attended a four-year college rather than leave the country. Second, when Samu
finally did leave for the United States, he was motivated by economic hardship, not persecution.
Finally, Samu still has family living in Indonesia without incident. As stated in Lie, “when
family members remain in the petitioner’s native country without meeting harm, and there is no
individualized showing that the petitioner would be singled out for persecution, the
4
reasonableness of a petitioner’s well-founded fear of future persecution is diminished.” 396 F.3d
at 537.
To reinforce his claim of future persecution, Samu relies on the persecution of Chinese
Christians generally in Indonesia. In Lie, we addressed the issue of whether an alien can
establish a well-founded fear of future persecution based on a pattern or practice of persecuting a
specific group due to their ethnicity or religion. 396 F.3d at 537. We stated that the persecution
had to be “systematic, pervasive, or organized.”
Id. (citing Ngure v. Ashcroft,
367 F.3d 975, 991
(8th Cir. 2004)). Furthermore, the pattern or practice has to be “committed by the Government or
forces the Government is either ‘unable or unwilling’ to control.” Abdulrahman v. Ashcroft,
330
F.3d 587, 592 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting
Gao, 299 F.3d at 272). Samu points to the unwillingness
of the police to help locate his kidnaped sister as evidence of government acquiescence.
However, Samu admitted that his family waited three days before contacting the police and they
had neither evidence, nor leads to pursue. This does not constitute acquiescence in the claimed
persecution. The other incidents do not implicate the Government’s acquiescence in any way.
Moreover, Samu’s attempt to distinguish Lie is unconvincing. Samu highlights the
number and seriousness of the acts against his family compared to a singular incident in Lie.
Yet, the incident in Lie was quite serious in that it involved a burglary and stabbing of a woman.3
Furthermore, the time frame involved in the attacks on Samu’s family undermines his claim of
persecution. The most serious of the incidents involving the beating of his father and burning of
3
Additionally, Samu claims that, unlike the Petitioner in Lie, he came to the United
States to escape further persecution. However, the petitioner in Lie filed a timely asylum
application upon entering the country; Samu did not. See Lie, 396 F.3d at 533. Samu also has
stated that he came to the United States in order to get a job to support his family rather than to
escape persecution.
5
the family store and house, took place twenty-two years ago. As evidenced by the U.S.
Department of State International Religious Freedom Report from 2003, the religious climate of
Indonesia has undergone change since then with the support of the government.4 The record
does not contain sufficient proof of future persecution based on previous experiences, nor based
on any pattern or practice of persecution towards Christian Chinese living in Indonesia. As a
result, Samu’s request for withholding of removal will be denied.
Samu also appeals the rejection of his CAT claim. For relief under the CAT, Samu must
prove that it is “more likely than not that he...would be tortured if removed to the proposed
country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). The IJ found that Samu had failed to prove that it
is more likely than not that he would be tortured if he is removed to Indonesia. We agree. There
is no evidence to support that claim and it appears to have been raised in “boiler plate” fashion
with no real basis in the record.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for review.
4
The International Religious Freedom Report presented as evidence states, “The
Government made considerable progress in some area, such as reducing interreligious violence
in the Maluku Islands and Central Sulawesi, and arresting and prosecuting terrorists and
religious extremists for carrying out religiously motivated attacks.” The Report also
acknowledges that Catholicism and Protestantism are officially recognized by the Government.
The Report also highlights how religious intolerance continues to exist in some parts of the
country despite Government efforts. However, that suggests the Government is taking steps to
address the situation. United States Department of State, Indonesia: International Religious
Freedom Report (2003) (Appendix 258).
6
