Johnson; Haryanti Sung v. Attorney General of the United States; Secretary of Department of Homeland Security

Honorable Paul R. Michel, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the*
Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 06-4578
JOHNSON; HARYANTI SUNG,
Petitioners
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES;
SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Respondents
On Petition for Review of a Final Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Immigration Judge: Honorable Charles M. Honeyman
(Nos. A96-264-083/4)
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 15, 2008
Before: AMBRO, FISHER, and MICHEL, Circuit Judges*
Filed: April 18, 2008
OPINION

-- 1 of 3 --

Johnson’s first name is not known.1
The parties have filed a stipulation and joint motion to supply an omission from2
the record. The motion is granted. See Fed. R. App. P. 16(b).
2
AMBRO, Circuit Judge
The petitioners, Johnson and his wife, Haryanti Sung, ask us to overturn the final1
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals that affirmed their removal to Indonesia. We2
deny the petition.
Johnson and Sung allege that if returned to Indonesia, they will face persecution
because they are Chinese Christians. The Immigration Judge found them credible but
determined their asylum application was untimely, and also concluded that they had
established neither past persecution nor a pattern or practice of persecuting Chinese
Christians in Indonesia. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed.
Johnson and Sung did not present an argument to us why they are entitled to
asylum or relief under the Convention Against Torture, so we will not consider those
issues. As to their withholding of removal claim, their argument is that the Immigration
Judge ignored relevant evidence demonstrating a pattern or practice of persecution of
Chinese Christians.
We review the Board’s and Immigration Judge’s denial of relief under a
deferential substantial evidence standard under which agency findings “must be upheld
unless the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it.” Abdille v.
Ashcroft, 242 F.3d 477, 483–84 (3d Cir. 2001). Having reviewed the record and the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Immigration Judge’s decision, we are satisfied that he reviewed the relevant evidence.
See A.R. 92–95 (reviewing reports). An Immigration Judge “need not discuss each and
every piece of evidence presented by an asylum applicant when rendering a decision, as
long as that decision is substantially supported.” Yan Lan Wu v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 418,
425 n.10 (3d Cir. 2005). Further, the evidence here does not compel a conclusion that
there is a pattern or practice of persecution of Chinese Christians in Indonesia. We have
already held that no such pattern or practice has been established, Lie v. Ashcroft, 396
F.3d 530, 537 (3d Cir. 2005), and our review of the more recent reports in the record
reveals no reason to revisit that conclusion.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.

-- 3 of 3 --