431 F. App'x 150
3rd Cir.2011Background
- Petitioners Soetiono (husband) and Ligito (wife) are Indonesian nationals who entered the United States in 2001 and overstayed.
- They conceded removability and sought asylum, withholding of removal, CAT protection, and voluntary departure.
- Soetiono alledged past persecution based on ethnicity (Chinese/Javanese mix) and Catholic religion, and wealth class; Ligito claimed ethnicity (Chinese) and religion (Catholic).
- IJ denied relief, finding no persecution and insufficient fear of future persecution; wealth as a ground for asylum was rejected.
- BIA initially denied relief and motions; on remand the BIA vacated, remanding to the IJ for further proceedings and updated record; new evidence included Dr. Winters’ expert testimony and State Department materials.
- On de novo review, the Third Circuit ultimately denies the petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Soetiono suffered past persecution | Soetiono argues acts against him were persecutory based on ethnicity and religion | BIA found no persecution; acts were not sufficiently severe or systemic | No; record does not show persecution under governing standard |
| Pattern or practice of persecution of ethnic Chinese Christians | Petitioners allege State Dept. reports show systemic persecution | Records do not show systemic, pervasive persecution in Indonesia | No; evidence not sufficient to show pattern or practice |
| Eligibility for asylum/withholding based on evidence | Record supports fear of persecution if returned | Evidence insufficient to meet asylum/withholding standards | No; petitioners fail to meet higher burden for asylum or withholding |
| Remand and consideration of new evidence | BIA should remand for plenary hearing and consider new reports | BIA properly treated new evidence as cumulative and declined remand | No reversible error; remand not warranted |
| Role of country condition evidence vs expert testimony | Expert should be controlling to show conditions | BIA properly relied on State Dept. country reports as best evidence | No reversible error; substantial evidence supports BIA’s reliance on country reports |
Key Cases Cited
- Lie v. Gonzales, 396 F.3d 530 (3d Cir. 2005) (isolated incidents insufficient for persecution; not every negative act suffices)
- Voci v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 607 (3d Cir. 2005) (economic/physical harms must be substantial to constitute persecution)
- Wong v. Att'y Gen., 539 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. 2008) (State Department reports do not prove pattern or practice of persecution)
- Zubeda v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 463 (3d Cir. 2003) (country reports are appropriate for examining political situations abroad)
- Camara v. Att’y Gen., 580 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. 2009) (persecution definitions require more than generalized discrimination)