Tjandra Sewidjaja v. Attorney General of the United States

1
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 06-4867
___________
TJANDRA SEWIDJAJA,
Petitioner,
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent.
________________________
On Petition for Review from
the Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No: A79-734-968
Immigration Judge: Donald Ferlise
________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
March 10, 2008
Before: FUENTES, CHAGARES, and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: April 2, 2008 )
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________

-- 1 of 4 --

The BIA’s jurisdiction arose under 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(b)(3), 1240.15, and 1240.53,1
which grant the BIA appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of IJs in removal
proceedings. We have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s final order of removal under 8
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2).
2
FUENTES, Circuit Judge.
Tjandra Sewidjaja, an ethnically Chinese Christian Indonesian citizen, seeks
review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”),
dated October 31, 2006, affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) oral decision of June 3,
2005. For the reasons that follow, the petition will be denied.1
Sewidjaja entered the United States on a non-immigrant visa in 1999 and
overstayed his visa without authorization from INS. The government initiated removal
proceedings against Sewidjaja by serving him with a Notice to Appear on March 23,
2003. Sewidjaja applied for relief in the form of asylum, withholding of removal and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), claiming that he was targeted
for abuse in Indonesia because of his Chinese ancestry.
At the hearing on his petition, Sewidjaja conceded that his petition for asylum was
not timely filed and proceeded only with his petition for relief of withholding of removal
and protection under CAT. He testified that when he was in third grade, a group of
teenagers demanded money from him and his friends while they were walking home,
calling them “Chinese.” He explained that they tried to run away but the teenagers caught
one of his friends and beat him up, and at that point, Sewidjaja gave them all his money.
They did not tell the police or get treated in a hospital. Next, he testified that he was

-- 2 of 4 --

3
shunned in high school because of his ethnicity. He testified that his teacher accused him
of cheating, when, in fact, an Indonesian student was cheating off of him. After
graduation, he took over his parents’ store. He testified that his Indonesian employees
stole from him and after he confronted them, they quit. Several days later, drunk friends
of the ex-employees showed up at the store and vandalized it. He claims that the police
told him to compensate the employees in order to keep the peace. Next, he testified that
on a trip to visit his girlfriend, he had to hide in her house for three days while six
churches in her town were burned by Muslim Indonesians. Finally, he testified that he
was the victim of a mob attack on his store, an event which was broken up by the police.
After the hearing, the IJ rendered his oral decision, noting that Sewidjaja had
conceded that he could not pursue his asylum claim. The IJ found Sewidjaja had testified
credibly. However, the IJ held that he had not “presented evidence to reflect that he has
ever been persecuted in the past or that there exists the clear probability of any future
persecution if he is returned to Indonesia.” (App. at 35.) The judge held that even if the
events he described had been motivated by the fact that he was Chinese, none of them
were sufficiently severe to qualify as persecution, citing to Lie v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530
(3d Cir. 2005). The IJ also held that Sewidjaja failed to show that he would suffer future
persecution if he were returned to Indonesia, finding no evidence that he would be singled
out for persecution and no evidence that the Indonesian government persecutes ethnic
Chinese citizens. Accordingly, the IJ denied Sewidjaja all forms of relief.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
On appeal to the BIA, the BIA affirmed the decision of the IJ in a per curiam
decision. The BIA held that Sewidjaja did not demonstrate a legal excuse for his late
filing of his asylum petition. Next, the BIA found that his brief on appeal was “generic”
and did not “relate to the facts of this case.” (App. at 2.) Finding that Sewidjaja had not
articulated any reason for reversing the IJ, the BIA dismissed the appeal.
On appeal to this Court, Sewidjaja argues that the IJ’s decision must be overturned
because he has a well-founded fear of future persecution. However, his brief is
completely devoid of facts specific to his case. We do not have jurisdiction to review
determinations of untimeliness. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). He also presents no basis on
which this Court could conclude that the decision to deny the other forms of relief sought
was error.
We conclude that the BIA’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, and,
accordingly, the petition will be denied.

-- 4 of 4 --