Go v. Dept Homeland ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2005 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    5-16-2005
    Go v. Dept Homeland
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket No. 04-2961
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
    Recommended Citation
    "Go v. Dept Homeland" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1187.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1187
    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 2005 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    NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 04-2961
    UNTARIO W. GO and LELIANA KARTIKA,
    Petitioners
    v.
    ALBERTO GONZALES, Attorney General;
    IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE;
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; and
    BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,
    ____________
    ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM AN ORDER OF
    THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
    (BIA Nos. A79-307-483 and A79-307-484)
    ____________
    Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
    May 4, 2005
    Before: McKee, VAN ANTWERPEN and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
    Filed: May 16, 2005
    ____________
    OPINION
    WEIS, Circuit Judge.
    Petitioners are husband and wife; they are natives and citizens of Indonesia
    who overstayed their non-immigrant visitor visas. They are of Chinese ethnicity and the
    1
    Christian religion.
    Petitioners applied for asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the
    Convention Against Torture and, in the alternative, for voluntary departure. Their request
    for asylum was untimely and is not before us. After a hearing, an IJ found that petitioners
    had failed to meet their burdens of proof for withholding of removal or for relief under
    the Convention, but granted their requests for voluntary departure. On June 28, 2004, the
    Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed.
    The petitioners’ testimony and affidavits detailed some discrimination
    against Chinese ethnics, including the requirement of carrying identification documents
    and limitations on education and governmental employment. Additionally, petitioners
    described vandilization of their home in 1989, and that female petitioner was accosted
    and threatened in 1992. In 1997 and again in 1998, petitioners were robbed. These
    incidents were attributed to their ethnic Chinese appearance. Petitioners testified that it
    was futile to go to the police because they were known to ask for money and to not act in
    response to reports.
    Female petitioner conceded that the majority of her problems arose from her
    ethnicity, rather than religion, and that her family members, who remained in Indonesia,
    are practicing Christians.
    The instances of what might be fairly described as “street crime,” do not
    appear to have any governmental support, but were random instances of illegal conduct
    2
    by civilians personally biased or prejudiced against ethnic Chinese people. Bias,
    however, does not amount to persecution. As said in Fatin v. INS, 
    12 F.3d 1233
    , 1243
    (3d Cir. 1993), “‘persecution’ is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of
    treatment our society regards as offensive” and which ordinarily does not include
    discrimination on the basis of race or religion, as morally reprehensible as it may be. See
    also Mitev v. INS, 
    67 F.3d 1325
    , 1331 (7 th Cir. 1995) (“unpleasant and even dangerous
    conditions do not necessarily rise to the level of persecution.”); Fisher v. INS, 
    79 F.3d 955
    , 961 (9 th Cir. 1996) (noting that persecution does not ordinarily include
    discrimination based on race or religion).
    Relief under the Convention Against Torture requires a showing that the
    torture is instigated by or acquiesced in by public officials or those acting in an official
    capacity. 
    8 C.F.R. § 208.18
    ; see also Lukwago v. Ashcroft, 
    329 F.3d 157
    , 183 (3d Cir.
    2003). That demonstration has not been made here.
    Accordingly, the petition for review will be denied.
    3