Murtijanto v. Attorney General of the United States , 306 F. App'x 742 ( 2009 )

Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
1-8-2009
Murtijanto v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-3120
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"Murtijanto v. Atty Gen USA" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 2064.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/2064
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 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 07-3120
BANGSAWAN BAYUAJI MURTIJANTO,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(Agency No. A96-203-999)
Immigration Judge: Honorable Charles M. Honeyman
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 5, 2009
Before: AMBRO, FISHER and JORDAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: January 08, 2009 )
OPINION
PER CURIAM
Bangsawan Bayuaji Murtijanto petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) final order of
removal. For the reasons that follow, we will deny his petition.
Murtijanto is a native and citizen of Indonesia and identifies himself as a member
of the Aceh ethnicity. He entered the United States as a non-immigrant visitor and
overstayed his visa. After he was placed in removal proceedings, he applied for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture.
The IJ denied all relief save Murtijanto’s request for voluntary departure, holding
that his asylum application was time-barred and that he could not satisfy the standard for
withholding of removal or CAT relief. The BIA agreed, affirming the IJ’s determination
that petitioner’s asylum claim was time-barred and that he was unable to satisfy the
changed circumstances or extraordinary circumstances exceptions. The BIA further
determined that petitioner’s credible testimony did not establish past persecution, a clear
probability of future persecution, or eligibility for protection under the CAT. Through
counsel, Murtijanto filed a petition for review. The Government opposes the petition.
We have jurisdiction over this petition for review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review the BIA’s factual findings for “substantial evidence.” See Abdille v. Ashcroft,
242 F.3d 477, 483-84 (3d Cir. 2001). Under this standard, we will uphold these findings
unless the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it. See id.In the briefing on his petition for review, Murtijanto challenges only the
determination that he was not entitled to withholding of removal. To be entitled to
withholding of removal to a specific country, an applicant must prove that it is more
2
likely than not that his “life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of
[his] race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3); Zubeda v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 463, 469 (3d Cir. 2003).
In the event that the applicant cannot demonstrate past persecution or a likelihood of
future individualized persecution, he may still be eligible for withholding of removal by
demonstrating “that in that country there is a pattern or practice of persecution of a group
of persons similarly situated to the applicant” on account of a protected ground. See
8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(2).
We agree with the BIA that Murtijanto did not demonstrate past persecution or that
he would more likely than not suffer future persecution if returned to Indonesia. In
support of his application, Murtijanto testified that his father, who is also Aceh, owned a
café in Jakarta, where government authorities would on occasion come to look for and/or
question other members of the Aceh movement. In February 2001, Murtijanto and his
father were detained for four days and questioned about people in the Aceh movement.
Murtijanto further testified that after their release, five people, presumably from the Aceh
movement, came to their house and asked for money or donations. When they refused, he
and his family received threats, and accordingly, in August 2001, moved to the NTB
Island near Bali. At that time, Murtijanto was sent to live in the United States.
Murtijanto testified that his parents moved back to Jakarta in 2005 and opened another
restaurant, and that since then, they have not been threatened or encountered any other
3
problems. The IJ found that, while his testimony was credible, the incidents related by
Murtijanto were not sufficiently severe and extreme to constitute past persecution, and
that there was no evidence in the record to suggest that Murtijanto might be singled out
for future persecution if he and his wife were to return to Indonesia.
As we cannot conclude that the evidence compels a contrary conclusion, we will
deny the petition for review.
4