Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortappealburden of proofdue processasylum
tortappealburden of proofdue processasylum

Related Cases

Marinelarena v. Garland
View Case »
Woodby v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Hernandez-Cartagena v. Barr
View Case »
Nardea v. Sessions
View Case »
Marynenka v. Holder
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Lim v. Holder

Facts

Hermanto Lim, a native and citizen of Indonesia, sought asylum in the United States, claiming he faced persecution due to his ethnic Chinese background. He reported experiencing several physical altercations, fear during anti-Chinese riots, and intimidation at his family's home. However, the IJ found that these incidents did not rise to the level of persecution necessary to grant asylum, leading to Lim's appeal to the BIA, which was subsequently dismissed.

Hermanto Lim, a native and citizen of Indonesia, seeks asylum in the United States, claiming he faced persecution due to his ethnic Chinese background. He reported experiencing several physical altercations, fear during anti-Chinese riots, and intimidation at his family's home.

Issue

Did the BIA err in dismissing Lim's appeal regarding his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture?

Did the BIA err in dismissing Lim's appeal regarding his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture?

Rule

The court reviews the agency's factual findings for substantial evidence and claims of due process violations de novo. To establish eligibility for asylum, an applicant must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution based on a protected ground.

We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we review de novo claims of due process violations, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000).

Analysis

The court applied the substantial evidence standard to the agency's findings, concluding that the cumulative effects of Lim's experiences did not amount to persecution. The court noted that Lim failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution or a pattern of persecution against ethnic Chinese individuals in Indonesia. Additionally, the court found that Lim did not meet the burden of proof required for withholding of removal or CAT relief.

Substantial evidence supports the agency's finding that the cumulative effect of the harms experienced by Lim, including several physical altercations in his youth, fear during anti-Chinese riots, an altercation with a police officer, minor extortion, and intimidation at his family's home, do not rise to the level of persecution.

Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit denied Lim's petition for review in part and dismissed it in part, affirming the BIA's decision.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court found substantial evidence supporting the BIA's conclusion that Lim did not experience persecution and failed to meet the burden of proof for his claims.

The government prevailed in the case because the court found substantial evidence supporting the BIA's conclusion that Lim did not experience persecution and failed to meet the burden of proof for his claims.

You must be