Henry Juliana Jong v. U.S. Attorney General
692 F. App'x 990
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Henny Jong, an ethnic Chinese Buddhist from Indonesia, entered the U.S. on a visitor visa in 2004, overstayed, and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief in 2009.
- Jong alleged past harassment, discriminatory laws that closed her father’s business, threats and extortion at her uncle’s store, and hiding during the 1998 Jakarta riots; she also cited later attacks on Buddhists in Indonesia.
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied asylum as untimely and found Jong’s reported mistreatment did not rise to past persecution; the IJ also found no clear probability of future persecution and denied CAT relief.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, agreeing Jong had not shown past persecution, would not be singled out if returned, and that there was no countrywide pattern or practice of persecuting Chinese Buddhists.
- Jong petitioned for review only of the withholding-of-removal denial; the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision for substantial evidence and denied the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jong suffered past persecution | Jong: cumulative harassment, threats, business closure, hiding in riots amount to past persecution | Agency: incidents were harassment/discrimination, not extreme mistreatment required for persecution | Denied — substantial evidence supports finding no past persecution |
| Whether Jong faces clear probability of future persecution | Jong: documented attacks on Buddhists and continued danger show she would be singled out or there is a pattern/practice | Agency: country reports show religious freedom generally respected; family remains in Indonesia unharmed; incidents isolated | Denied — no showing of singling out or pattern/practice; substantial evidence supports agency |
| Whether BIA failed to consider cumulative evidence | Jong: BIA overlooked cumulative harm and some evidence | Agency: BIA and IJ considered evidence sufficiently; not required to cite every item | Denied — record shows reasoned consideration |
| Whether economic harm suffices as persecution | Jong: loss of family business and quitting school constituted economic persecution | Agency: economic injury must produce an “impoverished existence” to qualify | Denied — economic harms here insufficient to show persecution |
Key Cases Cited
- Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226 (11th Cir. 2005) (defines "clear probability" standard for withholding of removal)
- Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 392 F.3d 434 (11th Cir. 2004) (past persecution creates rebuttable presumption of future persecution)
- Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2009) (examples of mistreatment that did not amount to persecution)
- Shi v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 707 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2013) (contrast: severe mistreatment constituting persecution)
- Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022 (11th Cir. 2004) (standard that conflicting evidence does not compel reversal under substantial evidence review)
- Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2006) (family remaining safely in home country undermines future-persecution claims)