Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-16-2005
Go v. Dept Homeland
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-2961
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Go v. Dept Homeland" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1187.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1187
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 2005 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 04-2961
UNTARIO W. GO and LELIANA KARTIKA,
Petitioners
v.
ALBERTO GONZALES, Attorney General;
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE;
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; and
BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,
____________
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM AN ORDER OF
THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
(BIA Nos. A79-307-483 and A79-307-484)
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
May 4, 2005
Before: McKee, VAN ANTWERPEN and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
Filed: May 16, 2005
____________
OPINION
WEIS, Circuit Judge.
Petitioners are husband and wife; they are natives and citizens of Indonesia
who overstayed their non-immigrant visitor visas. They are of Chinese ethnicity and the
1
Christian religion.
Petitioners applied for asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the
Convention Against Torture and, in the alternative, for voluntary departure. Their request
for asylum was untimely and is not before us. After a hearing, an IJ found that petitioners
had failed to meet their burdens of proof for withholding of removal or for relief under
the Convention, but granted their requests for voluntary departure. On June 28, 2004, the
Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed.
The petitioners’ testimony and affidavits detailed some discrimination
against Chinese ethnics, including the requirement of carrying identification documents
and limitations on education and governmental employment. Additionally, petitioners
described vandilization of their home in 1989, and that female petitioner was accosted
and threatened in 1992. In 1997 and again in 1998, petitioners were robbed. These
incidents were attributed to their ethnic Chinese appearance. Petitioners testified that it
was futile to go to the police because they were known to ask for money and to not act in
response to reports.
Female petitioner conceded that the majority of her problems arose from her
ethnicity, rather than religion, and that her family members, who remained in Indonesia,
are practicing Christians.
The instances of what might be fairly described as “street crime,” do not
appear to have any governmental support, but were random instances of illegal conduct
2
by civilians personally biased or prejudiced against ethnic Chinese people. Bias,
however, does not amount to persecution. As said in Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d 1233, 1243
(3d Cir. 1993), “‘persecution’ is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of
treatment our society regards as offensive” and which ordinarily does not include
discrimination on the basis of race or religion, as morally reprehensible as it may be. See
also Mitev v. INS, 67 F.3d 1325, 1331 (7 th Cir. 1995) (“unpleasant and even dangerous
conditions do not necessarily rise to the level of persecution.”); Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d
955, 961 (9 th Cir. 1996) (noting that persecution does not ordinarily include
discrimination based on race or religion).
Relief under the Convention Against Torture requires a showing that the
torture is instigated by or acquiesced in by public officials or those acting in an official
capacity. 8 C.F.R. § 208.18; see also Lukwago v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 157, 183 (3d Cir.
2003). That demonstration has not been made here.
Accordingly, the petition for review will be denied.
3