Dewi Yani Effendi Kuntjorohadi; Hok Hay Oeij v. Attorney General of the United States

This case was originally submitted before the three-judge panel of Scirica, Chief*
Judge, McKee and Chertoff, Circuit Judges. However, Judge Chertoff subsequently
recused. Because the remaining two judges agreed on the opinion and disposition of the
case, it was not necessary to assign a third judge. Linde v. Phelps, 731 F.2d 1201 (5th
Cir. 1984); Murray v. Nat'l Broadcasting Co., 35 F.3d 45 (2nd Cir. 1994). F o llo w in g
h is r e c u s a l, a n d b e f o r e th e f ilin g o f th is o p in io n , J u d g e C h e r to f f
r e s ig n e d f r o m th e c o u r t. T h e d e c is io n is th e r e f o r e f ile d b y a q u o r u m o f
th e p a n e l. 2 8 U .S .C . § § 4 6 ( d ) .
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No: 03-4192
DEWI YANI EFFENDI KUNTJOROHADI;
HOK HAY OEIJ,
Petitioners
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES;
BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES,
Petition for Review of a Decision
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(Nos. A79 307 561, A79 307 562)
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
November 19, 2004
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Circuit Judge,
and McKEE and CHERTOFF, Circuit Judges. *
(Filed March 16, 2005)

-- 1 of 4 --

2
OPINION
McKEE, Circuit Judge.
Dewi Yani Kuntjorohadi and her husband, Hok Hay Oeij, petition us to review a
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying their application for asylum and
withholding of removal and ordering their voluntary departure. For the reasons that
follow, we will dismiss the petition.
Because we write only for the parties, it is not necessary to recite the facts of this
case in detail. It is sufficient to note the following: the petitioners are nationals of
Indonesia who are of Chinese ethnicity and Catholic. They allege people of their ethnicity
and faith are both subjected to discrimination in Indonesia. They arrived in the United
States with visitor visas that authorized them to stay until May 24, 2000; both remained in
the United States beyond their authorized stay.
Petitioners concede their removability, but seek asylum, restriction (or
withholding) on removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture, and alternatively,
voluntary departure. Following an evidentiary hearing, the Immigration Judge denied
their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and for relief under the Convention
Against Torture, but granted the request for voluntary departure, imposing a $1,000 bond
for each petitioner. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the Immigration Judge’s
decision pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 208.4, and this petition for review followed. Petitioners

-- 2 of 4 --

3
ask us to review only the ruling on their asylum claim. They do not contest the denial of
their claims for withholding of removal and for relief under the Convention Against
Torture.
The Immigration Judge refused to consider the petitioners’ claim for political
asylum, on the grounds that the application for asylum was not timely filed. An
application for asylum must be filed within one year of entry into the United States,
unless the applicant is able to demonstrate changed circumstances materially affecting
his/her eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing.
8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2) (2002). Petitioners admit that they entered the United States on
November 25, 1999, but did not submit an application for asylum until April 11, 2001.
Petitioner’s Br. at 4.
They attempt to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances as well as changed
circumstances by arguing: (1) their ignorance of the one-year time limit for asylum
applications, and (2) the worsening of social and political conditions in Indonesia in
December, 2000. Id. at 10. The Immigration Judge found these reasons to be insufficient,
and so did not consider the application for asylum.
We do not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of the petitioners’ application
for asylum, its timeliness, nor the sufficiency of the alleged exceptions to the period of
limitations. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2002).
Inasmuch as this is the only issue petitioners have raised, we can not review the

-- 3 of 4 --

4
merits of their other grounds for relief either. Accordingly, the petition for review will be
dismissed.

-- 4 of 4 --