Case Summary
**Case Summary: Samuel Sentosa v. Eric Holder, Jr. (Docket No. 7836855)**
**Court:** United States Court of Appeals
**Date:** [Insert date of decision if available]
**Parties:**
- **Plaintiff/Appellant:** Samuel Sentosa
- **Defendant/Appellee:** Eric Holder, Jr., Former Attorney General of the United States
**Background:**
Samuel Sentosa, a native of Indonesia, filed an appeal against a decision made by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) concerning his immigration status in the United States. Sentosa sought relief from removal based on claims of persecution due to his Chinese ethnicity and Christian beliefs in Indonesia.
**Legal Issues:**
The primary legal issues in this case included:
1. Whether Sentosa had established a well-founded fear of persecution based on his ethnicity and religion.
2. Whether the BIA erred in denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
**Arguments:**
- **Appellant’s Argument:** Sentosa argued that he faced severe discrimination and threats in Indonesia, citing instances of violence against Chinese Christians. He claimed that these experiences justified his fear of persecution if returned to Indonesia.
- **Appellee’s Argument:** The Attorney General argued that Sentosa did not demonstrate an objective basis for his fear of persecution, highlighting inconsistent statements and a lack of corroborating evidence.
**Decision:**
The Court of Appeals evaluated the BIA’s findings and found that they were supported by substantial evidence. The Court held that Sentosa failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution, emphasizing the requirement for credible evidence to support claims of past persecution and future threats.
The Court affirmed the BIA’s decision denying Sentosa’s applications for asylum and related protections.
**Conclusion:**
The case of Samuel Sentosa v. Eric Holder, Jr. illustrates the challenges faced by applicants in establishing credible claims for asylum and the importance of presenting strong, corroborative evidence to support allegations of persecution. The affirmation of the BIA's decision reflects judicial deference to the agency's expertise in immigration matters.
**Note:** Please check official court documents for complete and accurate information on procedures, dates, and details relevant to the case.