Sunarto v. Attorney Gen. of United States, 042108 FED3, 07-1922
| Party Name | FAJAR DINA ATMINI SUNARTO, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES |
| Case Date | April 21, 2008 |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals, U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) April 16, 2008
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A97-966-492) Immigration Judge: Honorable Rosalind K. Malloy
Before: BARRY, SMITH and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges
OPINION
PER CURIAM
Fanjar Dina Atmini Sunarto petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"). The BIA dismissed Sunarto's appeal from the decision of an Immigration Judge ("IJ") denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). For the following reasons, we will deny the petition.
Sunarto is a native and citizen of Indonesia. In March 2000, she entered the United States on a nonimmigrant visitor's visa and overstayed. Sunarto, a Muslim and ethnic Javanese, married another Indonesian citizen who is Chinese Christian in March 2002 in Philadelphia. She filed an asylum application in November 2003, and in January 2004 the Department of Homeland Security served her with a Notice to Appear which charged her with being removable under INA § 237(a)(1)(B).
At hearings before an IJ, Sunarto conceded removability, but claimed that her marriage to an ethnic Chinese Christian put her in jeopardy of persecution if she were to return to Indonesia. The IJ dismissed Sunarto's asylum application as time barred, and rejected her requests for withholding of removal and protection under the CAT. On appeal, a single member of the BIA rejected her argument that she would be singled out for persecution or that there is a pattern or practice of persecution against native Indonesians who marry Chinese Christians, and affirmed the IJ's decision.
Sunarto now challenges the denial of withholding and relief under the CAT.1 We review the conclusions of the BIA; to the extent that the BIA adopted the IJ's opinion, we shall review that part of the IJ's opinion as well. See Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228, 243 (3d Cir. 2003) (en banc); Gao v. Ashcroft, 299 F.3d 266, 271 (3d Cir. 2002). Our review of the BIA's legal conclusions is de novo. See Borges v. Gonzales, 402 F.3d 398, 404 (3d Cir. 2005). We review the factual findings under the substantial evidence standard. Id.
To qualify for withholding of removal, Sunarto needed to show that it is more likely than not that she would be persecuted if she returned to Indonesia. See INA § 241(b)(3); Li Wu Lin v. INS, 238 F.3d 239, 244 (3d Cir. 2001). Sunarto maintains that the IJ and BIA erred in denying her claim because she showed a well-founded fear of future persecution. In order to do so, however, Sunarto needed to demonstrate a subjective fear of persecution through credible testimony that her fear was genuine. See Lie v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530, 536 (3d Cir. 2005). She also had to show that a reasonable person in her situation would be individually singled out for persecution or that there is a pattern or practice in Indonesia of persecution of persons similarly situated to her. Id.
The BIA...
To continue reading
Request your trial