Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-20-2006
Suriani v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-2205
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Suriani v. Atty Gen USA" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 873.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/873
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 05-2205
FARELLY SURIANI,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
Respondent
On Petition for Review of a decision and order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA No. A79-331-398)
Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 12, 2006
BEFORE: FISHER, GREENBERG, and LOURIE*, Circuit Judges
(Filed: June 20, 2006)
OPINION OF THE COURT
GREENBERG, Circuit Judge.
*Honorable Alan D. Lourie, Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit, sitting by designation.
This matter comes on before this court on Farelly Suriani’s petition for review of a
decision and order of the Board of Immigration Appeals which affirmed without opinion
a decision and order of an immigration judge denying Suriani’s application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and withholding of removal under the Convention Against
Torture. In addition, the IJ, and thus the BIA, declared Suriani permanently ineligible for
benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act in accordance with section 208(d)(6)
of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6), and 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.20 and 208.3(c)(5). Finally, the
IJ and the BIA ordered Suriani and her husband, who has a derivative claim for relief,
removed to Indonesia.
In this case the BIA had jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(b)(a), and we have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(1) and (b)(1). See Abdulrahman v. Ashcroft, 330
F.3d 587, 591 (3d Cir. 2003). Inasmuch as the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision and order
without opinion, effectively we are reviewing the order of the IJ. See Zhang v. Gonzales,
405 F.3d 150, 155 (3d Cir. 2005). Of course, we are obliged to accept the IJ’s findings of
fact “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.”
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
Suriani has summarized her argument as follows:
The IJ and the BIA erred by denying Petitioner asylum insofar as Petitioner
has satisfied the burden of proof, per 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a)(b), by presenting
evidence in the form of testimony and documentation establishing her well-
founded fear of persecution based upon both her Chinese ethnicity and her
2
Christian religion, INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987). In order
to satisfy her burden, it was required that Petitioner demonstrate that there
was a reasonable possibility of persecution should she return to Indonesia,
which could be satisfied by credible subjective evidence. See Dolores v.
INS, 772 F.2d 223 (6th Cir. 1985). Petitioner also documented the
objective basis for her fear of persecution by presenting country condition
reports concerning the historic persecution of the Chinese Christian
minority in Indonesia. Petitioner’s br. at 6 (internal quotation marks
omitted).
After our review of this matter we have concluded that the Attorney General
correctly states the case when he explains:
Like multitudes of Indonesian natives living here illegally, petitioner
does not wish to return to a country filled with civil strife; however, Ms.
Suriani has presented no evidence that distinguishes her situation from that
of other unsuccessful asylum seekers. Respondent’s br. at 16.
The petition for review will be denied.
3