Linda Hermanus; Jeremy Christiano Sumanti v. Attorney General of the United States

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-5243
LINDA HERMANUS;
JEREMY CHRISTIANO SUMANTI,
Petitioners
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Nos. A95-870-306 and A95-870-307
Immigration Judge: Hon. Charles M. Honeyman
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 17, 2007
BEFORE: McKEE, AMBRO and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: January 24, 2007)

-- 1 of 3 --

2
OPINION OF THE COURT
STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:
Petitioner Linda Hermanus and her son are natives and citizens of Indonesia. They
here petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture. Petitioners are ethnic Chinese Christians and maintain that
they have been persecuted in Indonesia because of their religion and ethnicity.
The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found Hermanus’ testimony “credible.” App. at 26.
She testified to the following: Hermanus is a lifetime resident of the Menado section of
Indonesia where she is a successful professional architect. She does not claim that
Christians, who comprise 80% of the population of Menado, have had any problems
practicing their religion there and indicates that most Christians in Menado are ethnic
Chinese and do not currently have serious problems. She fears, however, that the killings
of Chinese Christians elsewhere in Indonesia will eventually spread to Menado. Neither
she nor her Chinese Christian husband, who is a pastor of his church, have experienced
serious problems in Menado in the past. The only personal harm Hermanus could cite as
resulting from her religion and ethnicity were two occasions when a church-related
organization of which she was a member was unable to lease space it wanted, and when

-- 2 of 3 --

3
her business was unable to successfully compete for large government contracts.
Based on this testimony, the IJ found that no “actions taken against [Hermanus] in
the past would rise to the level of past persecution.” App. at 26. The IJ then concluded
that “the core of [her] claim [was] that a situation which has never occurred in the past in
Menado may indeed occur in the future leading [sic] her to be an individual . . . who faces
a reasonable possibility of future persecution on account of her race and/or religion. . . .”
App. at 28. While the IJ acknowledged that Hermanus might well have subjective
concerns about the future should she return to Indonesia, after carefully reviewing the
record regarding country conditions and conditions in Menado, he ultimately concluded
that Hermanus had “not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that she faces a
reasonable possibility of harm rising to the level of persecution . . . on account of a
statutory ground if she were to return to Indonesia.” App. at 32. The IJ then noted that
“it necessarily follow[ed] that the clear probability standard for withholding of removal
had not been met as well.” Id. Finally, the IJ found that Hermanus had not shown it more
likely than not that she would be tortured on her return. There is ample record support for
these conclusions.
We will deny the petition for review essentially for the reasons set forth in the
thorough and sensitive opinion of the IJ which was affirmed without opinion by the BIA.

-- 3 of 3 --