2008 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-4-2008

Soesamto v. Atty Gen USA

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 06-2217

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008

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 2008 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

"Soesamto v. Atty Gen USA" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1477.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1477
Honorable Joseph E. Irenas, Senior District Judge for the District of New Jersey, *

sitting by designation.

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 06-2217

 

KEVIN SOESAMTO,

Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

Respondent

 

On Petition for Review of an Order of

The Board of Immigration Appeals

Immigration Judge: Honorable Miriam K. Mills

(No. A96-258-152)

 

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

February 5, 2008

Before: MCKEE and AMBRO, Circuit Judges,

and IRENAS, District Judge *

(Opinion filed: March 4, 2008)

 

OPINION

 
2

AMBRO, Circuit Judge

Kevin Soesamto petitions for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals that affirmed his removal to Indonesia. We deny the petition.

Soesamto, an ethnically Chinese Christian, recounts two experiences in Indonesia

in support of his application. First, he alleges that while he was in church, a group of

Muslim people gathered outside, shouting, “Come out! We will burn this church!” When

no one came out, the Muslims partially destroyed the church’s garden and then scattered. 

Second, Soesamto alleges that after he was involved in a motorcycle accident, a group of

native Indonesians beat him while shouting ethnic slurs. Soesamto claims that, as a result

of these experiences, he suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome.

We lack jurisdiction to review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ conclusion that

Soesamto’s asylum application was filed out of time. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3);

Sukwanpatra v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 627, 634–35 (3d Cir. 2006). Further, we cannot

disturb the Board of Immigration Appeals’ and the Immigration Judge’s conclusions that

Soesamto is not entitled to withholding of removal or relief under the Convention Against

Torture. We review these claims under a deferential substantial evidence standard under

which agency findings “must be upheld unless the evidence not only supports a contrary

conclusion, but compels it.” Abdille v. Ashcroft, 242 F.3d 477, 483–84 (3d Cir. 2001). 

The evidence here does not compel a conclusion that Soesamto has suffered past

persecution or torture, see Lie v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530, 536 (3d Cir. 2005), nor a
3

conclusion that it is more likely than not that he will be persecuted or tortured if returned

to Indonesia, see id. at 537–38. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.