Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves the petition for review by an Indonesian citizen of Chinese descent and Catholic faith against the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order denying her asylum claim as untimely. The petitioner recounted several incidents of violence and harassment in Indonesia, including attacks on her home and a physical assault. The Immigration Judge (IJ) determined her asylum application was untimely and found that the incidents did not amount to persecution, leading to the denial of her withholding of removal application. The BIA affirmed the IJ's findings, agreeing that the incidents did not constitute persecution and there was no sufficient evidence of a likelihood of torture upon return. The court's jurisdiction was restricted from reviewing the timeliness of the asylum claim but allowed for evaluation of the withholding of removal, concluding that the petitioner did not demonstrate a more than 50% chance of life-threatening persecution on protected grounds. The petitioner's claims under the Convention Against Torture were waived due to lack of argument. Consequently, the court denied the petition for review.
Legal Issues Addressed
Asylum Claims and Timelinesssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court cannot review the Immigration Judge's determination that the asylum claim was untimely due to statutory restrictions.
Reasoning: The court's jurisdiction to review the case is limited; it cannot assess the IJ's timeliness ruling due to statutory restrictions.
Convention Against Torture Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Indriati's claims under the Convention Against Torture were deemed waived due to her failure to argue them on appeal.
Reasoning: Indriati's claims regarding relief under the Convention Against Torture were not argued and were thus considered waived.
Definition of Persecutionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The incidents experienced by Indriati, while concerning, did not meet the established legal definitions of persecution required for immigration relief.
Reasoning: The court noted that while the incidents were concerning, they did not meet the legal definitions of persecution as established in precedent.
Withholding of Removal Requirementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Indriati failed to demonstrate a more than 50% chance of life-threatening persecution based on protected grounds, as necessary for withholding of removal.
Reasoning: To qualify for withholding, Indriati must prove a more than 50% chance of life-threatening persecution based on protected grounds, which she did not achieve.