Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
9-28-2006
Swandani v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-1396
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Swandani v. Atty Gen USA" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 408.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/408
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 06-1396
________________
PANDE SWANDANI; UMAR SATIR,
Petitioners
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent
____________________________________
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW
OF AN ORDER OF THE BOARD OF
IMMIGRATION APPEALS
(Agency Nos. A79-672-955 & A79-672-954)
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
September 27, 2006
Before: SLOVITER, SMITH AND VAN ANTWERPEN, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed September 28, 2006)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Pande Swandani and her husband Umar Satir, natives of Indonesia, entered the
United States in May 2000 as visitors. On June 20, 2002, they were charged as
removable for overstaying their admission period. They conceded removability and
applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention against
Torture (CAT). They argued that they were persecuted in Indonesia based on their
religion and race. After a hearing, the IJ found the asylum applications to be untimely,
denied withholding and relief under the CAT, and ordered petitioners removed to
Indonesia. The BIA adopted and affirmed the decision of the IJ. Petitioners filed a
timely petition for review.
Generally, we lack jurisdiction to review a decision by the IJ or the BIA that an
asylum application is untimely. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). We have jurisdiction to review
constitutional claims and questions of law but not factual or discretionary determinations
related to the timeliness of an asylum application. Sukwanputra v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d
627, 634 (3d Cir. 2006). Petitioners do not raise any questions of law or constitutional
claims or even address the issue of the timeliness of their asylum applications in their
brief. Thus, we lack jurisdiction to review the determination that petitioners’ asylum
applications were untimely.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 over the BIA’s denial of withholding
of removal and relief under the CAT. The BIA’s decision should be reversed 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). At their hearing, petitioner
2
Swandani testified that in 1997 a man wielding a knife attacked them in their home. She
also described an incident in which she was robbed and almost raped after attending a
protest in May 1998. The incidents petitioner described do not rise to the level of
persecution. Lie v. Ashcroft, 396 F. 3d 530, 536 (3d Cir. 2005)(“[T]wo isolated criminal
acts, perpetrated by unknown assailants, which resulted only in the theft of some personal
property and a minor injury, [are] not sufficiently severe to be considered persecution.”)
Petitioners have not shown that the record compels a finding that their lives would
be threatened or they would be tortured if removed to Indonesia so as to entitle
them to withholding of removal or relief under the CAT. Tarrawally v. Ashcroft, 338
F.3d 180, 186 (3d Cir. 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). Accordingly, we will deny the
petition for review.
3