Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
9-12-2008
Yulianti v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-4807
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Yulianti v. Atty Gen USA" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 540.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/540
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 2008 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 07-4807
________________
FNU YULIANTI,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
_____________________
On Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Immigration Judge: Honorable Charles M. Honeyman
(No. A97-478-822)
_______________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
September 10, 2008
Before: SLOVITER, STAPLETON and COWEN, Circuit Judges
(Filed : September 12, 2008)
___________________
OPINION
___________________
PER CURIAM
Yulianti, an Indonesian native and citizen, petitions for review of a final order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) vacating the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) grant
of asylum relief. Before the IJ, Yulianti stated that she feared persecution based on her
Chinese heritage and her practice of Christianity. The IJ found that Yulianti was
ineligible for asylum based on her past experiences but determined that she demonstrated
a well-founded fear of future persecution based on a pattern and practice of persecution of
Chinese Christians in Indonesia. The Government appealed and the BIA, based on our
holding in Lie v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530 (3d Cir. 2005), remanded the case to the IJ for a
more specific ruling on possible changed conditions in Indonesia since 1999. On remand,
the IJ, relying on the 2004 State Department Country Report and 2005 International
Religious Freedom Report for Indonesia, issued a decision granting asylum based on a
well-founded fear of future persecution. The Government once again appealed to the
BIA. A single member of the BIA sustained the appeal and ordered Yulianti removed to
Indonesia. Yulianti now petitions this Court for review of the BIA’s order.
Yulianti contends that the BIA erred by failing to provide review by a three-
member panel. See Purveegiin v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 684, 692 (3d Cir. 2006) (BIA’s
discretion to employ single-member review is subject to judicial review). Under 8
C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(5), the only circumstance in which a single member may reverse a
decision of an immigration judge is “if such reversal is plainly consistent with and
required by intervening Board or judicial precedent, by an intervening Act of Congress, or
by an intervening final regulation.” Here, the BIA disagreed with the IJ’s assessment of
country conditions and whether Yulianti established a well-founded fear of persecution in
Indonesia. Thus, “[t]he BIA’s reversal was based not on intervening legal precedent, but
2
on factual disagreements between the immigration judge and the authoring Board
member.” 1 Purveegiin, 448 F.3d at 692; see also Voci v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 607, 613 (3d
Cir. 2005) (whether a petitioner has demonstrated a well-founded fear of future
persecution is a factual determination). Where the BIA’s contrary findings of fact
necessitate reversal, the regulations anticipate that the case will be assigned to a three-
member panel to ensure complete and thorough review of the record. Id. at 693.
Accordingly, the petition for review will be granted. We will remand this matter
to the Board of Immigration Appeals for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.2
1
As noted above, our opinion in Lie was decided between the IJ’s first decision
and the Government’s first appeal to the BIA.
2
We express no opinion on the merits of Yulianti’s application for asylum.