Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-19-2007
Sriyono v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-2084
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Sriyono v. Atty Gen USA" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 725.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/725
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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
No. 06-2084
NACHUM SRIYONO,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent
ON PETITION OF REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF AN ORDER
OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
(BIA No. A96-203-761)
Immigration Judge: Charles M. Honeyman
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
July 10, 2007
Before: SLOVITER, WEIS and ROTH, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: July 19, 2007)
OPINION
WEIS, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner is a citizen of Indonesia who overstayed his authorization to
remain in the United States. He untimely sought asylum and applied for withholding of
1
removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture, alleging he was persecuted
because he is a Javanese Christian.
The IJ and BIA found no extraordinary circumstances that would excuse the
petitioner’s failure to apply for asylum within the applicable one-year period. As it does
not present a constitutional claim or a question of law, we lack jurisdiction to review that
finding. See Jarborough v. Attorney General, 483 F.3d 184, 188-89 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)).
Petitioner asserts that he is eligible for withholding of removal because he
suffered past persecution and that persecution has a clear probability of being repeated if
he is returned to Indonesia.
Petitioner stated that he left Indonesia because he and his wife were
generally disliked and were isolated from family and neighbors because of their religion.
He left during the chaos and riots surrounding the general elections in 1998 and 1999. He
alleged that local inhabitants threw stones at his house periodically during that time
because he was a Christian. He also described an automobile accident that occurred
during a riot in 1996 when another driver intentionally hit the rear of his vehicle because
he had a cross hanging from the rearview mirror. The police arrived at the scene of that
incident and found the other driver at fault for the accident.
The IJ and the BIA concluded that petitioner had failed to establish past
persecution or the clear probability of future persecution required to show eligibility for
withholding of removal. See Gabuniya v. Attorney General, 463 F.3d 316, 321 (3d Cir.
2
2006). We agree that the relatively minor and isolated incidents that petitioner describes
are not sufficiently severe to constitute persecution. See Lie v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530,
536 (3d Cir. 2005) (holding that random acts of robbery and assault resulting in minor
injuries cannot be characterized as acts of persecution). Nor has petitioner shown that
these incidents are the result of governmental action or acquiescence. Id. at 537. In the
case of the vehicle accident, the only incident directly implicating governmental action,
the police acted in the petitioner’s favor by finding the other driver at fault.
Finally, the additional record evidence does not compel us to overturn the
IJ’s and the BIA’s finding that there is no individualized risk of persecution of petitioner
or a pattern or practice of persecution against Javanese Christians. The alleged incidents
of discrimination and violence against Christians are not widespread enough to satisfy the
petitioner’s burden here, id. at 537-38, and are offset by country reports of a reduction in
violence and an increase in inter-religious cooperation.
Our review of the record reveals no grounds for withholding of removal.
Accordingly, the petition will be denied.
3