Suprilyanto v. Attorney General , 265 F. App'x 99 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2008 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    2-15-2008
    Suprilyanto v. Atty Gen USA
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket No. 06-4133
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
    Recommended Citation
    "Suprilyanto v. Atty Gen USA" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1590.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1590
    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.
    NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    No. 06-4133
    SUPRILYANTO, FNU,
    Petitioner
    v.
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES;
    SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
    Respondents
    On Petition for Review of an Order
    of the Board of Immigration Appeals
    (No. A96-253-205)
    Immigration Judge: Hon. Charles M. Honeyman
    Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
    February 11, 2008
    Before: SLOVITER, SMITH, and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges
    (Filed February 15, 2008)
    ______
    OPINION
    SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.
    Fnu Suprilyanto petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen his immigration proceedings. We will
    deny the petition for review.
    I.
    Suprilyanto is a native and citizen of Indonesia and an ethnic Chinese Christian.
    He entered the United States on or about November 26, 1996 pursuant to a temporary
    non-immigrant visa, but overstayed his authorization to remain temporarily in the United
    States. Over six years later, he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and
    protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
    At the evidentiary hearing before the Immigration Judge (“IJ”), Suprilyanto
    testified about several incidents of verbal insults and one incident where he was punched
    and slapped around, which he claimed was because he was a Chinese Christian. He also
    recalled one occasion where rocks were thrown at the house in which he was living with
    his brother by people who yelled “Chinese, Chinese.” A.R. at 102. He and his brother
    moved about thirty minutes away, where they did not have further problems other than in
    processing documents such as a national ID card.
    The IJ found that Suprilyanto’s request for asylum was untimely and that he had
    not demonstrated changed or extraordinary circumstances that excused the delay. See 8
    C.F.R. § 1208.4(a). The IJ also found that Suprilyanto failed to establish past persecution
    2
    or a well-founded fear of future persecution were he to return to Indonesia. Further, the
    IJ concluded that Suprilyanto did not qualify for CAT protection. However, the IJ
    granted Suprilyanto’s request for voluntary departure. The BIA adopted and affirmed the
    IJ’s decision.
    The BIA subsequently denied Suprilyanto’s motion to reopen his proceedings
    because, construing it partly as a motion to reconsider, it was untimely under 8 C.F.R. §
    1003.2(b)(2), and because none of the evidence showed changed country conditions that
    would affect his eligibility for asylum. Suprilyanto appeals this denial. We review the
    BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Sevoian v. Ashcroft, 
    290 F.3d 166
    , 170 (3d Cir. 2002).
    II.
    We lack jurisdiction to review the finding that Suprilyanto’s asylum petition was
    time-barred because it does not present a constitutional claim or a question of law. See
    Sukwanputra v. Gonzales, 
    434 F.3d 627
    , 633-34 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing 8 U.S.C. §§
    1158(a)(3), 1252(a)(2)(D)). The fact that Suprilyanto filed a motion to reopen does not
    change the result. See Mehilli v. Gonzales, 
    433 F.3d 86
    , 92 (1st Cir. 2005).
    Suprilyanto argues that the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen was “contrary to
    law,” because the BIA failed to consider 
    Sukwanputra, 434 F.3d at 637
    , a case which this
    court remanded because the IJ had failed to address whether a pattern or practice of
    persecution existed in Indonesia. This argument is without merit because in this case the
    3
    IJ specifically found there was no evidence of a pattern or practice of persecution against
    Chinese Christians in Indonesia. Suprilyanto also argues that the BIA improperly failed
    to “grant weight” to the evidence he submitted with his motion to reopen. Pet. Br. at 12.
    At most, this argument challenges the BIA’s factual findings, a challenge over which we
    have no jurisdiction as we are limited to questions of law.
    We agree with the government’s contention that Suprilyanto failed to preserve his
    withholding of removal claim but, in any event, conclude that there was substantial
    evidence to support the BIA’s determination that Suprilyanto failed to show he was
    entitled to withholding of removal. See Zubeda v. Ashcroft, 
    333 F.3d 463
    , 471 (3d Cir.
    2003).
    III.
    For the above-stated reasons, we will deny the Petition for Review.
    _______________________
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-4133

Citation Numbers: 265 F. App'x 99

Judges: Sloviter, Smith, Stapleton

Filed Date: 2/15/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024