Case ID: f-appx_196/html/0142-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pande SWANDANI; Umar Satir, Petitioners v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF the UNITED STATES, Respondent.
    No. 06-1396.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Sept. 27, 2006.
    Filed Sept. 28, 2006.
    Eleanor H. Chen, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioners.
    Richard M. Evans, David E. Dauenheimer, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: SLOVITER, SMITH and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Pande Swandani and her husband Umar Satir, natives of Indonesia, entered the United States in May 2000 as visitors. On June 20, 2002, they were charged as removable for overstaying their admission period. They conceded removability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention against Torture (CAT). They argued that they were persecuted in Indonesia based on their religion and race. After a hearing, the IJ found the asylum applications to be untimely, denied withholding and relief under the CAT, and ordered petitioners removed to Indonesia. The BIA adopted and affirmed the decision of the IJ. Petitioners filed a timely petition for review.

Generally, we lack jurisdiction to review a decision by the IJ or the BIA that an asylum application is untimely. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). We have jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and questions of law but not factual or discretionary determinations related to the timeliness of an asylum application. Sukwanputra v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 627, 634 (3d Cir.2006). Petitioners do not raise any questions of law or constitutional claims or even address the issue of the timeliness of their asylum applications in their brief. Thus, we lack jurisdiction to review the determination that petitioners’ asylum applications were untimely.

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 over the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal and relief under the CAT. The BIA’s decision should be reversed only if the record permits but one reasonable conclusion which was not the one reached by the Board. I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). At their hearing, petitioner Swandani testified that in 1997 a man wielding a knife attacked them in their home. She also described an incident in which she was robbed and almost raped after attending a protest in May 1998. The incidents petitioner described do not rise to the level of persecution. Lie v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530, 536 (3d Cir.2005)(“[T]wo isolated criminal acts, perpetrated by unknown assailants, which resulted only in the theft of some personal property and a minor injury, [are] not sufficiently severe to be considered persecution.”)

Petitioners have not shown that the record compels a finding that their lives would be threatened or they would be tortured if removed to Indonesia so as to entitle them to withholding of removal or relief under the CAT. Tarrawally v. Ashcroft, 338 F.3d 180, 186 (3d Cir.2003); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). Accordingly, we will deny the petition for review.