Liem v. Atty Gen USA, (3rd Cir. 2006)

Text

---

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

U N IT E D STATES COURT OF APPEALS

F O R THE THIRD CIRCUIT

N o . 05-4248

G IO K LANG LIEM,

Petitioner

v. A T T O R N E Y GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

Respondent

P e titio n for Review of an Order of the

B o a rd of Immigration Appeals

(N o . A79-331-026)

Im m ig ra tio n Judge: R. K. Malloy

S u b m itte d Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

O c to b e r 4, 2006

B e f o r e : McKEE, AMBRO, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.

(F ile d December 21, 2006

O P IN I O N OF THE COURT

N Y G A A R D , Circuit Judge. P e titio n e r Giok Lang Liem, a native and citizen of Indonesia, seeks review o f a final order of removal issued by the Bureau of Immigration Appeals (BIA).

Specifically, the Petitioner is appealing the decision of the Immigration Judge denying her a p p lica tio n for asylum based on her Chinese ethnicity and her Christian religion. We will d e n y the petition for review.

I.

B e c a u se we write for the sole benefit of the parties to this appeal, we will re c ite only the facts necessary to our analysis. Petitioner Giok Lang Liem is a citizen and n a tiv e of Indonesia and was admitted to the United States as a non-immigrant. Petitioner s ta ye d in this country longer than was permitted. Removal proceedings were initiated a g a in s t her when the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) served P e titio n e r with a Notice to Appear charging her with removability under 8U.S.C. § 1 2 2 7 (a )(1 )(B ). Petitioner conceded removability, but requested a grant of asylum, w ith h o ld in g of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture, or a lte rn a tiv e ly, the privilege of voluntary departure.

II.

P e titio n e r maintains she was persecuted in Indonesia because of her C h in e se ethnicity and her identification with the Christian religion. At her removal h e a rin g , the Petitioner was asked if she had experienced any persecution in Indonesia on a c c o u n t of her ethnicity or religion. She testified that an individual of Chinese ethnicity is " lo o k e d down upon." Petitioner further indicated that, in Indonesia, individuals of C h in e se ethnicity are "ridiculed and called names." When asked if she had experienced a n y problems or persecution on account of her religion, Petitioner was equally vague, in d ic a tin g to the immigration judge that "many churches had been destroyed." Although th e administrative record is replete with the Petitioner's statements indicating the general p rob lem s and/or incidents of persecution experienced by other individuals and members o f her family, it is lacking in any particularized incidents of persecution associated d ire c tly with the Petitioner herself. She testified that she has never experienced any p ro b le m s or persecution personally while she was living in Indonesia. Specifically, when a sk e d whether she had actually been prohibited from attending church services in In d o n e sia , she indicated "No." A.R. at 83. When asked whether she had ever e x p e rie n c ed any physical harm of any kind while living in Indonesia, she testified "no, n o t myself." Id.

Based on the caliber and content of this testimony and admissions, the im m ig ra tio n court determined that the Petitioner "utterly failed to establish that she s u f f e re d past persecution on account of her ethnicity or religion." A.R. at 44.

Additionally, the immigration court did not find that she would suffer future persecution if returned to Indonesia or that she would experience government-sponsored torture if she re tu rn e d . A.R. at 45-46. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed this determination a n d Petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review with this court.

I I I.

T h e Petitioner must demonstrate a "clear probability" that her life or f re e d o m would be threatened if she is deported in order to qualify for withholding of re m o v a l. See Mulanga v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 123, 132 (3d Cir. 2003). Under that sta n d a rd , we must determine whether it is more likely than not that the Petitioner would b e subjected persecution were she to return. Id. It is the Petitioner's burden to prove that h e r life or freedom would be threatened on account of her ethnicity and/or her religion. 8 C .F .R . § 1208.16(b). Furthermore, we review the immigration court's factual d e te rm in a tio n s that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility for relief for " su b s ta n tia l evidence." This means that we will uphold the immigration court's findings if they are supported by "reasonable, substantial and probative evidence on the record w h e n considered as a whole." See Abdulrahman v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 587, 597 (3d Cir. 2 0 0 3 ); see also Sukwanputra v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 627, 630 n.2 (3d Cir. 2006).

P e titio n e r has not met this burden.

Our review of the administrative record, specifically the Petitioner's own te stim o n y conclusively demonstrates that she herself admits to never having been harmed in Indonesia, and to never having been prohibited from attending church. As we have p o in te d out earlier, every incident of persecution she highlighted in her testimony was rep o rted generally or happened to some member of her family. Additionally, the record in d ic a te s the Petitioner's admission that her principal reason for wishing to remain in the U n ite d States is economic opportunity, not fear of persecution. A.R. 85.

IV .

W e conclude that the Petitioner has not established a claim of past or future p e rs e c u tio n , either by reason of her ethnicity or her religious affiliation, and that the im m ig ra tio n judge's decision in this matter is supported by substantial evidence.

Accordingly, we will affirm the B.I.A.'s denial of withholding of removal.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review will be denied.

---