Sulistiowati (not precedential): IJ Must Analyze Pattern Or Practice Of Anti-Chinese Persecution In Indonesia

Sulistiowati v. Filip
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/081148np.pdf
Not Precedential
No. 08-1148
January 21, 2009

Judges McKee, Nygaard, and Roth. Per Curiam decision. Judge Roth voted to deny the petition for review so it was a 2-1 decision.

The case in immigration court was heard by IJ Rosalind K. Malloy

The BIA and IJ Malloy erred by not analyzing whether there is a pattern or practice of persecution in Indonesia against ethnic Chinese.

A basic legal rule is that someone can seek asylum by proving a subject fear of persecution along with objective proof that a reasonable person in the circumstances would fear persecution. One way to show objective fear of persecution is to show a pattern or practice of persecution against a group of similar people. This is in the law at 8 CFR 208.13(b)(2)(iii)(A).

IJ Malloy did not address whether there was a pattern or practice of persecution in Indonesia of ethnic Chinese people. IJ Malloy did comment that the asylum-seeker did not fully articulate her exact fear, but did not address the issue of a pattern or practice of persecution. The BIA and IJ Malloy erred by not addressing that issue and the Third Circuit overturned the decision, remanding for further hearings.