Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
9-21-2007
Wijana v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-2635
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Wijana v. Atty Gen USA" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 402.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/402
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 2007 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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
Nos. 06-2635 and 06-2636
____________
IDA WIJANA,
Petitioner in No. 06-2635
vs.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent
DENNY FARIDDIN NOOR,
Petitioner in No. 06-2636
vs.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent
____________
ON PETITIONS FOR REVIEW OF ORDERS
DATED APRIL 10, 2006 OF THE BOARD OF
IMMIGRATION APPEALS
(BIA Nos. A96-266-651 & A96-266-652)
(Immigration Judge: Charles M. Honeyman)
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
September 18, 2007
Before: SLOVITER, SMITH and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: September 21, 2007)
____________
OPINION
1
WEIS, Circuit Judge.
Petitioners are natives and citizens of Indonesia. Petitioner Noor testified
that they are ethnic Chinese Christians. Petitioners came to the United States separately
in 1999 and married in 2001 after overstaying their non-immigrant visas. In 2003, they
applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture.
The IJ and the BIA found that the request for asylum was untimely and that
petitioners did not show extraordinary circumstances or changed circumstanced that
excused the delay. We lack jurisdiction to review that finding because it does not present
a constitutional claim or a question of law. See Jarbough v. Attorney General, 483 F.3d
184, 189-90 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)).
The IJ and BIA also rejected the petitioners’ applications for withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture because they found that
petitioners had not suffered past persecution or shown a clear probability of future
persecution or a likelihood that they would be tortured if they return to Indonesia.
Petitioner Noor testified that his parents and siblings run a restaurant in
Indonesia. He stated that they have been visited by people who demanded money from
them, but that they have not been otherwise harmed. He claimed that while he and his
wife were in Indonesia they were subjected to insults and harassment from native
Indonesians. He described one incident in 1998 where he and Wijana were assaulted by
two assailants who attempted to rob them. When Noor attempted to defend himself and
2
his future wife, he was slashed on the arm with a knife, but did not require medical
treatment. The assailants fled when Noor and Wijana retreated to a police station.
The robbery incident and the other instances of unfair treatment suffered by
petitioners do not meet the requirements for a showing of past persecution or a clear
probability of persecution should they return to Indonesia. See Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d
1233, 1249 (3d Cir. 1993). The attack was an isolated one and it is significant that
petitioners were able to escape further harm because of the availability of police
protection. See Lie v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530, 537 (3d Cir. 2005). The Country Report
entered into the record supports the IJ and BIA’s conclusion that petitioners have not
shown a pattern or practice of persecution of similarly situated persons in Indonesia or a
likelihood they would be tortured should they return to Indonesia.
Our review of the record persuades us that the IJ and the BIA did not err in
ordering the petitioners’ removal.
Accordingly, the petitions for review will be denied.
3