Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-22-2006
Rasjid v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-4039
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Rasjid v. Atty Gen USA" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1073.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1073
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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: 04-4039
BAKRI RASJID; OLIVIA HERDIJONO
Petitioners
v.
*ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES
Respondent
*(Amended pursuant the F.R.A.P. 43(c))
Petition for Review from a Final Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(File Nos. A79-305-042, A79-305-043)
Submitted pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 27, 2006
Before: McKEE, VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges
and POLLAK, Senior District Judge *
OPINION
McKEE, Circuit Judge.
*
The Honorable Louis H. Pollack, Senior District Judge for the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by
designation.
1
Bakri Rasjid and Olivia Herdjijono, husband and wife, petition for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s
denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (the “CAT”).1 For the reasons that follow,
we will affirm the BIA and dismiss the Petition for Review.
I.
Inasmuch as we are writing primarily for the parties who are familiar with
this matter, we need not reiterate the factual or procedural background of this
appeal except insofar as may be helpful to our brief discussion.
Herdjijono entered the United States on December 14, 1998, but she did not
file her application for asylum until December 12, 2001. Rasjid entered the United
States on May 14, 1999, but did not file his application until April 30, 2001. The
Immigration Judge dimissed Petitioners’ asylum applications because they were
not filed within one year of arrival in the United States and Petitioners failed to
show exceptional circumstances that would excuse the untimeliness. The IJ also
denied Petitoners’ claims for withholding of removal and relief under the CAT.
The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed without opinion pursuant to 8 C.F.R.
§ 3.1(a)(7).
II.
Rasjid was the derivative beneficiary of Herdjijono’s asylum application.
1
Adm. Rec. 72.
2
An alien must submit an application for asylum within one year of entry
into the United States absent “extraordinary circumstances” or an intervening
change in country conditions. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). Petitioners claim that
exceptional circumstances excuse the late filing of the asylum applications.
However, we have no jurisdiction to review the IJ’s conclusion to the contrary
given the jurisdictional bar contained in 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). Accordingly, the
IJ’s dismissal of the asylum applications must stand.
Although the jurisdictional bar does not apply to Petitioners’ claims for
relief from withholding of removal or relief under the CAT, neither claim is raised
as an issue in the Petitioners’ brief on appeal. Rather, Petitioners only ask us to
determine “whether there was an exceptional circumstance that justified the late
filing of [their] . . . applications for asylum,” and “whether [they] demonstrated
their inability or unwillingness to return to Indonesia . . . such that the Immigration
Judge should have granted their applications for asylum on their merits.”
Petitioners’ Br. at 3
However, because of the aforementioned jurisdictional limitation, we have
no jurisdiction to review the asylum issues they are attempting to raise on appeal.
“[T]he language of 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) clearly deprives us of jurisdiction to
review an IJ’s determination that an asylum petition was not filed within the one
year limitations period, and that such period was not tolled by extraordinary
circumstances.” Tarrawally v. Ashcroft, 338 F.3d 180, 185 (3d Cir. 2003).
3
III.
Accordingly, we must dismiss the Petition for Review as we have no
jurisdiction to address the only claim Petitioners raise in their brief. 2
2
Since they are not raised in their brief, the withholding of removal and
CAT claims are waived or abandoned. See Ghana v. Hollland, 226 F.3d 175, 180
(3d Cir. 2000), see also FRAP 28(a)(5). Local Appellate Rule 28.1(a) requires
appellants to set forth the issues raised on appeal and to present an argument in
support of those issues in the opening brief. See Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 76,
182 (3d Cir. 1993) (“It is well settled that if an appellant fails to comply with these
requirements on a particular issue, [appellant]. . . normally has abandoned and
waived that issue on appeal.”).
The IJ denied all relief after finding that the testimony Petitioners offered at
their removal hearing was not credible. Alternatively, he ruled that, even if their
testimony had been credible, it would not have established a claim for withholding
of removal or relief under the CAT. Although we have no jurisdiction to review
the only claim before us, we note our agreement with the IJ’s conclusion that
Petitioners’ testimony regarding their mistreatment in Indonesia would not have
established eligibility for relief from removal even if that testimony had been
accepted as credible.
4