Chi v. Atty Gen USA

Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-8-2004
Chi v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-2446
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"Chi v. Atty Gen USA" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 516.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/516
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 2004 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 03-2446
HARYANTO RUSLI CHI,
Petitioner
v.
JOHN ASHCROFT,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
No. A78-687-300
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
July 2, 2004
BEFORE: AM BRO, ALDISERT and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed July 8, 2004)
OPINION OF THE COURT
STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:
Appellant-Petitioner sought asylum and relief from removal, claiming that he had
suffered past persecution and had a well-founded fear of future persecution in Indonesia
on account of his Chinese ethnicity. The immigration judge (“IJ”) found that petitioner
had suffered past persecution as a result of his property loss during riots in Indonesia in
May 1998 and that he had thus established a rebuttable presumption of future persecution.
The IJ further found that changes in conditions in Indonesia did not overcome the
presumption of future persecution and granted petitioner’s application for asylum.
The Service then appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), arguing,
inter alia, that the property loss suffered by petitioner did not amount to past persecution
and that he did not possess a well-founded fear of future persecution in light of the record
evidence that he had safely relocated to Bali during the riots, that he had returned to live
without incident in Jakarta after the rioting, and that his ex-wife and children, who are
also ethnically Chinese, continued to reside unmolested in Jakarta.
The BIA held that petitioner’s loss of property during the 1998 riots did not
constitute past persecution and that he had no well-founded fear of future persecution in
2
light of his safe internal relocation during the riots and his family’s continued safety in
Indonesia.
Petitioner now seeks review of the BIA’s order denying asylum and withholding of
removal.
Petitioner lost cash and property worth approximately $13,000 when rioters looted
and burned the building in Jakarta where he worked. The building was owned by a
Chinese bank and rented by petitioner’s employer, an Indonesian stock brokerage firm.
This incident is the sole basis for petitioner’s claim that he has shown past persecution.
After this incident, petitioner relocated to Bali and was not harmed there.
The BIA held that the destruction of the office building in which petitioner had his
office did not constitute persecution of him. While there was evidence that the building
may have been destroyed because it was owned by a Chinese bank, the BIA was
unwilling to conclude that it was destroyed because petitioner had his office in the
building. There is substantial evidence to support this position of the BIA. Since “all
persons who rented office space in that building were affected, whether or not they were
Chinese,” petitioner, in the BIA’s view, had not been persecuted within the meaning of
the INA. We are unwilling to say that this was an unreasonable interpretation of the
concept of persecution under that Act and, accordingly, defer to that interpretation.
Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 214, 217 (3d Cir. 2003).
There was also substantial evidence to support the conclusion that petitioner could
3
avoid future persecution by relocating in Indonesia.
The petition for review will be denied.
4