Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-16-2008
Aprilanto v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-3279
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Aprilanto v. Atty Gen USA" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1216.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1216
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 07-3279
___________
BAMBANG APRILANTO,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
____________________________________
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(Agency No. A96-204-391 )
Immigration Judge: Honorable Charles M. Honeyman
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 23, 2008
Before: MCKEE, NYGAARD and ROTH, Circuit Judges
Opinion filed: May 16, 2008
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM
Bambang Aprilanto petitions for review of a final order of removal issued by the
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). For the reasons that follow, we will deny the
1
petition.
Petitioner, a Christian and native and citizen of Indonesia, entered the United
States on October 26, 2000, as a B-2 non-immigrant visitor and was authorized to remain
temporarily within the United States until November 25, 2000. On July 21, 2003,
Petitioner was issued a Notice to Appear, which alleged that he was in the country
without authorization. In response, he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and voluntary departure.
In denying his claims on March 24, 2006, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) concluded
that Petitioner’s asylum application was untimely and that Petitioner had neither
demonstrated that he had suffered past persecution nor that he had a well-founded fear of
future persecution. The IJ further found that Petitioner had not satisfied the requirements
for withholding of removal pursuant to § 241(b)(3)(A) or under the CAT. The IJ granted
his application for voluntary departure. On June 28, 2007, the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed the IJ’s decision.
We have jurisdiction to review the final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1).
Because the BIA issued a decision on the merits, we review only the BIA’s, not the IJ’s,
decision. Gao v. Ashcroft, 299 F.3d 266, 271 (3d Cir. 2002). We will sustain the BIA’s
determinations if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Adbille v.
Ashcroft, 242 F.3d 477, 483 (3d Cir. 2001). Under the substantial evidence standard, we
will uphold the determinations of the BIA “unless the evidence not only supports a
2
contrary conclusion, but compels it.” Id. at 483-84.
Petitioner, in his brief, states that the sole issue before this Court is “the IJ’s
adverse credibility determination.” (Petr.’s Br. 10.) As stated, we review only the BIA’s,
not the IJ’s decision. See Gao, 299 F.3d at 271. It is clear that the BIA’s decision, which
repeatedly referred to and cited Petitioner’s testimony, was a decision on the merits
without reference to the adverse credibility of the Petitioner. Because Petitioner’s brief to
this Court makes no mention of the BIA’s decision on the merits, and refers solely to the
IJ’s opinion, he has waived appellate review of the BIA’s decision. See e.g., In re Surrick
338 F.3d 224, 237 (3d Cir. 2003) (holding that the “failure to identify or argue [an] issue
in [Petitioner’s] opening brief constitutes waiver of [the] argument on appeal.”).
For the foregoing reasons, we will deny Petitioner’s petition for review.
3