Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
12-21-2006
Liem v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-4248
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Liem v. Atty Gen USA" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 50.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/50
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 2006 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 05-4248
___________
GIOK LANG LIEM,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent
___________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(No. A79-331-026)
Immigration Judge: R. K. Malloy
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 4, 2006
Before: McKEE, AMBRO, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
(Filed December 21, 2006 )
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner Giok Lang Liem, a native and citizen of Indonesia, seeks review
of a final order of removal issued by the Bureau of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
Specifically, the Petitioner is appealing the decision of the Immigration Judge denying her
application for asylum based on her Chinese ethnicity and her Christian religion. We will
deny the petition for review.
I.
Because we write for the sole benefit of the parties to this appeal, we will
recite only the facts necessary to our analysis. Petitioner Giok Lang Liem is a citizen and
native of Indonesia and was admitted to the United States as a non-immigrant. Petitioner
stayed in this country longer than was permitted. Removal proceedings were initiated
against her when the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) served
Petitioner with a Notice to Appear charging her with removability under 8 U.S.C. §
1227(a)(1)(B). Petitioner conceded removability, but requested a grant of asylum,
withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture, or
alternatively, the privilege of voluntary departure.
II.
Petitioner maintains she was persecuted in Indonesia because of her
Chinese ethnicity and her identification with the Christian religion. At her removal
hearing, the Petitioner was asked if she had experienced any persecution in Indonesia on
account of her ethnicity or religion. She testified that an individual of Chinese ethnicity is
2
“looked down upon.” Petitioner further indicated that, in Indonesia, individuals of
Chinese ethnicity are “ridiculed and called names.” When asked if she had experienced
any problems or persecution on account of her religion, Petitioner was equally vague,
indicating to the immigration judge that “many churches had been destroyed.” Although
the administrative record is replete with the Petitioner’s statements indicating the general
problems and/or incidents of persecution experienced by other individuals and members
of her family, it is lacking in any particularized incidents of persecution associated
directly with the Petitioner herself. She testified that she has never experienced any
problems or persecution personally while she was living in Indonesia. Specifically, when
asked whether she had actually been prohibited from attending church services in
Indonesia, she indicated “No.” A.R. at 83. When asked whether she had ever
experienced any physical harm of any kind while living in Indonesia, she testified “no,
not myself.” Id.
Based on the caliber and content of this testimony and admissions, the
immigration court determined that the Petitioner “utterly failed to establish that she
suffered past persecution on account of her ethnicity or religion.” A.R. at 44.
Additionally, the immigration court did not find that she would suffer future persecution
if returned to Indonesia or that she would experience government-sponsored torture if she
returned. A.R. at 45-46. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed this determination
and Petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review with this court.
3
III.
The Petitioner must demonstrate a “clear probability” that her life or
freedom would be threatened if she is deported in order to qualify for withholding of
removal. See Mulanga v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 123, 132 (3d Cir. 2003). Under that
standard, we must determine whether it is more likely than not that the Petitioner would
be subjected persecution were she to return. Id. It is the Petitioner’s burden to prove that
her life or freedom would be threatened on account of her ethnicity and/or her religion. 8
C.F.R. § 1208.16(b). Furthermore, we review the immigration court’s factual
determinations that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility for relief for
“substantial evidence.” This means that we will uphold the immigration court’s findings
if they are supported by “reasonable, substantial and probative evidence on the record
when considered as a whole.” See Abdulrahman v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 587, 597 (3d Cir.
2003); see also Sukwanputra v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 627, 630 n.2 (3d Cir. 2006).
Petitioner has not met this burden.
Our review of the administrative record, specifically the Petitioner’s own
testimony conclusively demonstrates that she herself admits to never having been harmed
in Indonesia, and to never having been prohibited from attending church. As we have
pointed out earlier, every incident of persecution she highlighted in her testimony was
reported generally or happened to some member of her family. Additionally, the record
4
indicates the Petitioner’s admission that her principal reason for wishing to remain in the
United States is economic opportunity, not fear of persecution. A.R. 85.
IV.
We conclude that the Petitioner has not established a claim of past or future
persecution, either by reason of her ethnicity or her religious affiliation, and that the
immigration judge’s decision in this matter is supported by substantial evidence.
Accordingly, we will affirm the B.I.A.’s denial of withholding of removal.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review will be denied.
5