2006 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

11-20-2006

Pui v. Atty Gen USA

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 05-3964

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Pui v. Atty Gen USA" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 175.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/175
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT 

OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

NO. 05-3964

 

 JOHAN PUI,

Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES

 

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

No. A95-165-311

Immigration Judge: Hon. Rosalind K. Malloy

 

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

November 9, 2006

BEFORE: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, and McKEE and STAPLETON,

Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed : November 20, 2006)

 
 1

The IJ denied Pui’s application for asylum as untimely, and the BIA agreed. We

would have no jurisdiction to review this determination. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). Pui’s

briefing before us does not rely upon the Convention Against Torture.

2

 

OPINION OF THE COURT

 

STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:

Johan Pui is a native and citizen of Indonesia. At his removal hearing, he

conceded removability but sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under

the Convention Against Torture. The IJ denied Pui’s applications. When the BIA

affirmed this decision, this timely petition for review followed. In this appeal, Pui

challenges only the ruling that he is not entitled to withholding of removal based upon his

“showing that both he and his family have been persecuted on behalf of their beliefs

[Christian] and ethnic background [Chinese] and that the situation in Indonesia” is such

that persecution would in all likelihood reoccur upon his return there.1

 Appellant’s Br. at

3.

Pui’s claim of past ethnic and religious persecution in Indonesia rests primarily on

his testimony that (1) a mob of native Muslim Indonesians, rioting in a Chinese section of

Jakarta in May of 1998, forced their way into his father’s store, threw the merchandise

into the street, ripped off Pui’s pants and touched his buttocks, and ultimately burned the
3

building to the ground, and (2) Pui’s Catholic church was also burned to the ground in

1998.

The BIA disposed of this claim in the following manner:

We agree with the Immigration Judge’s ultimate denial of the

respondent’s claim for withholding if removal, The respondent asserted

that he feared persecution, in part, because he is a Christian. Although the

respondent testified that his church in Indonesia was “burned” in 1998, (Tr.

at 29), he failed to mention this critical event in either of his written

statements or in his application. The respondent also testified that he had

attended a particular church in the United States every Sunday for some 3

years since he arrived, yet when asked the name of the church’s pastor he

replied, “Father, Indonesian guy, I forgot. See Tr. at 41-42. Immigration

Judge, expressly stated that he disbelieved the respondent’s assertion of

being Christian. Since the Immigration Judge found that the respondent’s

statements could not be believed, the Immigration Judge made an adverse

credibility finding. The Immigration Judge also discussed the respondent’s

lack of responsiveness to a number of questions; this further supports the

adverse credibility finding as the respondent was clearly evasive regarding

his reasons why he came to the United States. See Tr. at 30-34, 45, 53-56. 

We find no clear error in the Immigration Judge’s determination that the

respondent lacked credibility. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i), See generally,

Ambartsoumian v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 85, 93 (3d Cir. 2004). The

respondent’s lack of credibility implicates his entire claim, and the

respondent offered no corroboration of the church fire or of the fire he

claims that was set at his father’s store/house.

We also note that the respondent’s ethnic Chinese family members,

some of whom are Christian, have reportedly not experienced any

difficulties since the 1998 riots. While the respondent has shown that

ethnic Chinese Christians in Indonesia have experienced problems and

discrimination he has not shown that there is an actual “pattern or practice”

of persecution of similarly situated individuals. The facts of this case are

similar to those we considered in Matter of A-M-, 23 I&N Dec. 737 (BIA

2005), where we found no such pattern or practice in Indonesia. The

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, under whose

jurisdiction this case falls, has also rejected such a claim on similar facts as

presented to it. See Lie v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530, 537-538, & n.4 (3d Cir.

2005). The evidence here also fails to reflect that the respondent would be
4

“singled out” for persecution upon return. There is no indication that the

rioters or others have any particular interest in this individual respondent,

and he lived in Indonesia without difficulty for more than 2 years after the

1998 riots. The respondent has not shown that it is more likely than not his

life or freedom would be threatened upon return. See section 241(b)(3) of

the Act.

App. at 48 (footnotes omitted).

There is ample record support for the conclusion of the IJ and the BIA that Pui

lacked credibility. This fact, the fact that Pui remained in Indonesia for two years after

1998 without further incident, the fact that his family has remained in Indonesia without

any difficulties since 1998, and the fact that no “pattern and practice” of persecution

within the teachings of Lie v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530 (3d Cir. 2005), has been shown

require that we deny Pui’s petition for review.

Given our decision in Lie and the BIA’s record supported ruling on Pui’s

credibility, each of his three arguments is either not relevant or without merit.

The petition for review will be denied.