Filed: Feb. 04, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-4-2009 Sandjojo v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-3853 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009 Recommended Citation "Sandjojo v. Atty Gen USA" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1927. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1927 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinio
Summary: Opinions of the United 2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-4-2009 Sandjojo v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-3853 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009 Recommended Citation "Sandjojo v. Atty Gen USA" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1927. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1927 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinion..
More
Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
2-4-2009
Sandjojo v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-3853
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"Sandjojo v. Atty Gen USA" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1927.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1927
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 2009 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 07-3853
___________
GOENAWAN SANDJOJO,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent
____________________________________
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(Agency No. A96-203-342)
Immigration Judge: Honorable Robert Owens
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 28, 2009
Before: SLOVITER, STAPLETON and COWEN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 4, 2009)
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM
Goenawan Sandjojo petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA). For the reasons below, we will deny the petition for review.
Sandjojo was admitted to the United States in May 2001 as a visitor. In April
2003, he was charged as removable for overstaying his admission period. Sandjojo
conceded removability and applied for withholding of removal and relief under the
Convention Against Torture. He argued that he had suffered and would suffer
persecution in Indonesia on account of his Chinese ethnicity and his Christian religion.
After the IJ denied relief, the BIA dismissed the appeal. Sandjojo filed a timely petition
for review.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. In his brief, Sandjojo only argues
that he is entitled to withholding of removal. To be eligible for withholding of removal,
Sandjojo must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that his life would be threatened
in Indonesia on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
group, or political opinion. Tarrawally v. Ashcroft,
338 F.3d 180, 186 (3d Cir. 2003); 8
U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). We may reverse the BIA’s decision only if the record permits
but one reasonable conclusion which was not the one reached by the Board. I.N.S. v.
Elias-Zacarias,
502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
Sandjojo argues that he suffered past persecution on account of his Chinese
ethnicity and his Christian religion when he was (1) threatened by an army officer with a
gun for being too loud; (2) severely mistreated at school; (3) threatened by an army
officer while at work; (4) forced to change religion in order to marry a native Indonesian;
and (5) extorted by native Indonesians. We conclude that Sandjojo has not shown that the
2
record compels a finding that he suffered past persecution on account of his ethnicity or
religion.
Sandjojo also argues that there is a pattern or practice of persecution against
Chinese Christians in Indonesia. We have held that in order to constitute a “pattern or
practice,” the persecution of a group must be “systemic, pervasive, or organized.” Lie v.
Ashcroft,
396 F.3d 530, 537 (3d Cir. 2005). In Wong v. Attorney General,
539 F.3d 225
(3d Cir. 2008), we held that the 2003 and 2004 Country Reports did not demonstrate a
pattern or practice of persecution against Chinese Christians. We noted that the 2005 and
2006 Country Reports documented improved treatment of Chinese Christians in
Indonesia.
Wong, 539 F.3d at 234. Here, Sandjojo refers to the 2005 Country Report.
He concedes that the report notes a reduction in inter-religious violence and a government
initiative to prosecute extremists.
We conclude that Sandjojo has not shown that the record compels a finding that
his life would be threatened if removed to Indonesia so as to entitle him to withholding of
removal. Tarrawally v. Ashcroft,
338 F.3d 180, 186 (3d Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we will
deny the petition for review. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted and the motion for
an extension of time is denied.
3