2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 2-21-2008 

# O ng v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-4559

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" On g v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1555. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1555NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

I N TH E UN I TED STATES CO UR T

OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 06- 4559

L I E P T I E K ONG Pet i t i oner v . ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

R es pondent

O n P et i t i on for R eview of an O rderof the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s N o. A 96- 203- 489 I m m i gr at i on J udge: H on. R . K . M al l oy

Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February12, 2008 B E FO R E : SL O V I T E R , SM I T H and S T A P L E T O N , C i r cui tJudges ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: February21, 2008)2 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udge: Pet i t i onerL i ep Ti ek O ng i s a B uddhi s tand nat i ve and c i t i zen of I ndones i a w i t h a C hi nes e ethni c bac kgr ound. H e s eeks r evi ew of an or derof the B ur eau of I m m i gr at i on A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ) a f

f irm in g a d e c isio n o f

a n im m ig ra tio n ju d g e (“ IJ” ) d e n y in g h im asy lum , w ith h o lding o f re m o v al an d reli ef u n d er the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re ( “C A T ”) , and di r ect i ng hi s r emoval . H e cl ai m s t o have be en per s ecut ed i n t he pas t , and t o fea rper s ecut i on i n t he futur e, beca us e of hi s ethni ci t yand r el i gi on. T h e B IA d e n ied O n g ’s a p p lica tio n f o r a sy lu m a s u n tim e ly . W e lac k ju risd ictio n to re v iew th a t d e n ial. 8 U .S .C ., § § 1 1 5 8 (a )(2 )a n d (3 ); T a rr a w a lly v . A sh c ro

ft , 338 F. 3d 180 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). O ng t es t i fi ed thathi s candybus i nes s w as des t r oy ed i n t he 1998 r i ot s t hat deci m at ed s o m anyC hi nes e pl ace s of bus i nes s . H e ac know l edged, how ever , t hathe had r emai ned i n I ndones i a dur i ng t he fol l ow i ng t hr ee- and- a- hal f y ear s w hi l e he w or ked for ot her s and thathi s par ent s and s i bl i ngs cont i nue t o l i ve ther e i n a C hi nes e hous i ng compl ex. W hen as ked w hetherhe had e xper i ence d anyfur t heradver s e i nci dent s dur i ng t hos e thr ee- and- a- hal f y ear s , he r es ponded onl yt hats om e mer chandi s e had be en s t ol en f ro m h is p ic k -u p v a n o n o n e o c c a s io n a n d th a t h is s is te r h a d b e e n ro b b e d o n o n e o c c a s io n .3

H e di d nott es t i fyt o anyi nci dentof harm occurr i ng t o hi m as a r es ul tof hi s r el i gi on. T he B I A agr eed w i t h t he I J ’ s concl us i on t hatpet i t i oner“does notfac e a c l ear pr obabi l i t yof per s ecut i on i f r etur ned t o I ndones i a, and thus does notm er i tw i t hhol di ng of r emoval . ” W e ca nnotfaul tt he conc l us i on of the I J and the B I A . W hi l e l ament abl e, t he d e s tru c tio n o f

p e titio n e r’ s b u s in e s s d o e s n o t r is e to th e le v e l o f p e rs e c u tio n . Fa t i n v . I NS , 1 2 F .3 d 1 2 3 3 , 1 2 4 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 3 ) (‘th e c o n c e p t o f p e rse c u tio n d o e s n o t en c o m p a ss a ll t r eatm entt hatours oci etyr egar ds as unfai r , unj us t , oreven unl aw ful oruncons t i tut i onal . ” R a th e r, “p e rse c u tio n re f e rs to “ th re a ts to life , co n f in e m e n t, or to rtu re a n d e c o n o m ic re stric tio n s s o se v e re th a t th e yc o n stitu te a th re a t to life o r f re e d o m ” ). N o r d o th e th e f ts f ro m p e titio n e r a n d h is s is te r. I d. ; L ie v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 9 6 F .3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). N o r c a n w e f

a u lt th e IJ’ s a n d th e B IA ’s c o n c lu sio n th a t p e tit io n e r “ h a s f a iled to demonst r at e thathe i s ‘ m or e l i kel yt han not ’ t o be t or tur ed i n I ndones i a. ” Ther e i s no evi dence i n t he r ecor d s ugges t i ng a l i kel i hood of t or tur e. T he pet i t i on forr evi ew w i l l be deni ed.