Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02929/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02929-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alberto Gonzales
Respondent
Suryoadi Suryoadi
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2929

___________

Suryoadi Suryoadi, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of an 

v. * Order of the Board of 

* Immigration Appeals.

Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of *

the United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: June 15, 2007

Filed: July 31, 2007

___________

Before MELLOY, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Suryoadi Suryoadi is a native and citizen of Indonesia. He entered

the United States on a visitor’s visa and overstayed that visa. Twenty-two months

after Suryoadi entered the United States, he applied for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. He conceded removability,

and his case came before an immigration judge (“IJ”) for a hearing. At the hearing,

the IJ found that Suryoadi missed the one-year deadline for filing his asylum

application without satisfying any exception to the filing deadline. In the alternative,

the IJ found Suryoadi was not entitled to asylum because his claims of past

Appellate Case: 06-2929 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/31/2007 Entry ID: 3335272
-2-

persecution and of a well-founded fear of future persecution were without merit.

Further, the IJ found that because Suryoadi had lived in Indonesia for eight years

without incident prior to entering the United States, and because his family remained

in Indonesia unharmed, Suryoadi failed to show it would be unreasonable to relocate

within the country to avoid the alleged risk of harm. Because Suryoadi failed to meet

the lower standards for asylum or demonstrate that relocation would be unreasonable,

the IJ found Suryoadi’s same arguments insufficient to justify the other requested

forms of relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) adopted and affirmed

the IJ’s decision with limited additional comments.

Because the Board affirmed and adopted the decision of the IJ, we review the

IJ’s and the Board’s decisions together. Quomsieh v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 602, 605

(8th Cir. 2007). The government correctly notes that we lack jurisdiction to review

the IJ’s factual determination that Suryoadi’s asylum application was untimely and

that no exception applies to excuse Suryoadi’s untimeliness. See Yakovenko v.

Gonzales, 477 F.3d 631, 635-36 (8th Cir. 2007) (holding that a finding of untimeliness

is a factual finding shielded from our review by 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3)).

Regarding the claim for withholding of removal, Suryoadi alleged a fear of

persecution because unidentified purported persecutors believed he and his family

were affiliated with a communist party organization and practiced black magic. The

IJ found that Suryoadi was generally credible regarding Suryoadi’s recitation of his

own experiences, none of which involved persecution. The IJ expressed doubts,

however, as to the veracity of Suryoadi’s claims of past harm to his family. Suryoadi

claimed that his grandfather had been a member of a communist party organization

in 1965. Suryoadi claimed further that, in 1996, Muslim extremists motivated by anticommunist sentiment and anti-black magic sentiment burned the family home where

his grandfather and parents lived. Although Suryoadi claimed the home was severely

damaged, he also stated that his family, including his wife, remained at the home.

Suryoadi also stated that unidentified people threatened his family in 1998, but that

Appellate Case: 06-2929 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/31/2007 Entry ID: 3335272
-3-

there was no violence associated with the 1998 threats. As to the anti-communist

sentiment, there was no evidence of recent participation by Suryoadi or his family in

any communist organization, and the IJ found it unlikely that persons sufficiently

motivated to attack Suryoadi’s family would wait forty years to release their

aggression. Nevertheless, the IJ did not expressly find Suryoadi to be non-credible

in this regard.

Rather, the IJ found that there was no showing of past persecution because:

Suryoadi had lived in Bali for the eight years preceding his entry into the United

States without witnessing or experiencing any personal harm; Suryoadi’s parents and

wife had remained in the home that was purportedly burned in 1996 without suffering

any additional alleged harm; no allegations of personal harassment nor property

damage involving any member of Suryoadi’s family rose to the level of persecution

or torture; and there was no evidence tending to demonstrate that the state was

involved in, or acquiesced in, any alleged persecution. Finding no past persecution,

the IJ proceeded to determine that Suryoadi also failed to present sufficient evidence

to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution or torture.

We may only reverse the administrative ruling in this case if the evidence as

reflected in the administrative record is “so compelling that no reasonable factfinder

could fail to find” that the petitioner qualifies for relief. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502

U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). The record does not compel such a finding. Rather,

Suryoadi points to no evidence in the record tending to disprove the IJ’s findings, and

the record is more than adequate to support the IJ’s determinations.

We affirm the Board and deny the petition for review.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2929 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/31/2007 Entry ID: 3335272