Sugiharto Ruslim v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES On Petition for Review of Decision

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 06-3711
SUGIHARTO RUSLIM,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES
On Petition for Review of Decision
and Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A96-259-772
Immigration Judge: R. K. Malloy
Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 23, 2007
BEFORE: FISHER, ALDISERT, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Filed: October 24, 2007)
OPINION OF THE COURT
GREENBERG, Circuit Judge.
This matter comes on before the court on a petition for review of a decision and
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) entered July 12, 2006, dismissing

-- 1 of 3 --

2
petitioner Sugiharto Ruslim’s appeal of a decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal pursuant to sections 208
and 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158,
1231(b)(3), as well as denying his request for withholding of removal pursuant to the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The IJ, however, granted him voluntary departure.
The BIA had jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1103 and 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(b)(3) and (9) and
1240.15, and we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2) and (d). In this case the
BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision for the reasons that the IJ stated, and, in addition, made
some additional comments. In these circumstances we review the decisions and orders of
both the BIA and the IJ. We will deny the petition for review as “reasonable, substantial
and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole” completely supports the
disposition of the case by the BIA and IJ. See Guo v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 556, 561 (3d
Cir. 2004).
To start with Ruslim filed his application for asylum far after the expiration of the
one-year period following an alien’s arrival in the United States allowed by section
208(a)(2)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), and he does not advance any reasons
that justify his late application. Moreover, in light of the conclusion of his brief asking
only that we “reverse or set aside the BIA’s decision, and remand the case for further
prosecution of [his] prayer for relief of withholding of removal, and protection under the
CAT,” he does not appear to contend otherwise. Petitioner’s br. at 15. In any event, the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
BIA and IJ clearly did not err in finding that his application for asylum was unjustifiably
untimely.
The balance of Ruslim’s claim is completely insubstantial. Indeed, in his brief,
though he cites to certain incidents in his youth in Indonesia that he characterizes as
persecution, he states that he “did not allege any past persecution, but based merely his
application on general country conditions in Indonesia.” Id. at 6. The fact is that if we
accepted his arguments the entire population of Indonesia insofar as it is of Chinese
origin would be entitled to asylum or withholding of removal in this country. We reject
that suggestion.
The petition for review of the decision and order of the BIA entered July 12, 2006,
will be denied.

-- 3 of 3 --