Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02493/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02493-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alberto Gonzales
Respondent
Fnu Surya
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2493

___________

Fnu Surya, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of an Order 

v. * of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

*

* 

Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General *

of the United States of America, *

 *

Respondent. *

___________

 Submitted: April 20, 2006

 Filed: July 21, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

MELLOY, Circuit Judge.

Fnu Surya, a native and citizen of Indonesia, entered the United States in 2000.

He was charged with being removable for overstaying his visa. He conceded the

charge and applied for asylum, claiming he suffered persecution from the Dayak

people of Indonesia because he is Madurese. The immigration judge (“IJ”) denied his

request, finding that he failed to file for asylum within one year after arriving in this

country and that he did not meet his burden of establishing eligibility for withholding

of removal and protection under Convention Against Torture. The IJ noted that the

Appellate Case: 05-2493 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/21/2006 Entry ID: 2069892
-2-

threat of persecution for Surya did not exist throughout Indonesia. He was granted

voluntary departure. Surya appealed that decision to the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“BIA”), which affirmed the IJ’s decision. Surya now petitions this court for

review. We deny the petition.

Surya was born in Sabang, Indonesia, on the island of Sumatra. He is Madurese

and Muslim. As part of the Indonesian government’s transmigration program, his

family moved to Sampit, Kalimantan, when he was young. As of 2002, Madurese

settlers like Surya’s family make up roughly eight percent of Kalimantan’s population,

while the indigenous Dayaks comprise roughly forty percent of Kalimantan’s

population. 

From September 5, 1994, to July 17, 1995, Surya traveled to Spain as a

fisherman. To make sure that he always returned to the ship, the ship captain kept his

passport when he entered the country. From April 5, 1996, to February 2, 1997, Surya

was again in Spain. He then returned to Indonesia and began working in a gold

factory that was owned by Dayaks. Surya testified that his problems with Dayaks

began at this time. He testified that he was given heavy work with no breaks and that

in 1998 he was attacked by about five members of his supervisor’s crew. He stated

that in a series of attacks Dayaks tried to torture him and threatened to kill him with

a knife. In November or December 1998, he quit working at the factory because he

feared for his life. 

After leaving the gold factory, Surya returned to working as a fisherman for a

Spanish company that had an office in Jakarta. From January 25, 1999, to March 11

2000, Surya traveled to Hawaii. He did not seek asylum at that time because nothing

had yet happened to his family. The ship captain again kept Surya’s passport for

insurance, and he was not paid until after the job was done. In March 2000, Surya

returned to Indonesia to collect his salary. At that time he planned to return to

Appellate Case: 05-2493 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/21/2006 Entry ID: 2069892
-3-

Kalimantan. Also, in 1995, 1997, and 2000, Surya lived temporarily in Jakarta,

Indonesia. 

Upon his return to Indonesia, he contacted his sister, Prihatin, who lived in

Kalimantan. She told him stories of Dayaks harming the Madurese, including the

torture of his older brother. In February 2000, Surya’s family’s house was burned

down and their possessions destroyed. Surya testified that approximately 200,000

Madurese had their houses destroyed by Dayaks at that time. The government’s

efforts to assist the Madurese in Kalimantan were largely unsuccessful. Surya’s

sisters were safe because they are married to Dayak men. As a result, his family

stayed in Banjarmasin with his sister for five to six months. After that time, Surya’s

parents, younger sister, and older brother moved to Singapore, where they have

temporary status.

 Surya’s last entry into the United States was on May 13, 2000. He arrived in

Seattle, Washington, then took a plane to Dallas, Texas, and ended up in Florida

working on a cruise ship. At the end of 2000, Surya left Florida and went to

Minnesota for a job. 

Surya did not file an application for asylum and withholding of removal until

February 24, 2003. On April 11, 2003, INS charged Surya with being subject to

removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A). Surya testified that he did not apply

immediately upon entering the country because he did not know how to apply for

asylum and because he did not apply until after he received a letter from his father

stating that he should not go back to Kalimantan because of killings there. 

At a preliminary hearing on January 16, 2004, Surya conceded that he was

subject to removal but declined to designate a country of removal. The IJ designated

Indonesia. On July 1, 2004, the IJ held an evidentiary hearing. On July 20, 2004, the

IJ denied Surya’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the

Appellate Case: 05-2493 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/21/2006 Entry ID: 2069892
-4-

Convention Against Torture, but granted Surya the privilege of voluntarily departing

the United States. The IJ found that Surya’s application was untimely because it was

not filed within one year after his arrival and he did not qualify for any exceptions to

the one-year rule. The IJ also found that Surya failed to show that he would suffer

future persecution based on his ethnicity if he returned to Indonesia. In particular, the

IJ noted that Surya had traveled to other areas of Indonesia without incident and that

the 2003 Country Report on Human Rights Practices for Indonesia noted that although

relations between the Madurese and Dayaks are poor, there were no reports of killings

between the groups during 2002. Further, Surya did not show that the government of

Indonesia was unwilling or unable to control the problems between Dayaks and the

Madurese. Lastly, the IJ concluded that Surya failed to show that it was “more likely

than not” that he would be tortured by the government or someone acting on behalf

of the government. Thus, he was not entitled to relief under CAT.

On July 30, 2004, Surya timely appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA. On May

10, 2005, the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision. Surya filed a petition for

review of the BIA’s decision on June 1, 2005. 

On appeal, Surya argues that the IJ erred in finding his asylum claim was barred

by the one-year limitation. An application for asylum must be filed within one year

of an alien’s entry into the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). Surya concedes

on appeal that he filed his application well after the one-year period had expired and

that he did not show that he qualified for an exception to the statutory deadline.

Accordingly, under our case law this court lacks jurisdiction to review the IJ’s

determination that the asylum application was not timely filed. Wijono v. Gonzales,

439 F.3d 868, 871 (8th Cir. 2006).

However, even if Surya’s asylum claim was timely, his petition fails because

he has not demonstrated that he had a well-founded fear of future persecution. Surya

argues that the IJ erred in finding that he failed to show that he had a well-founded

Appellate Case: 05-2493 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/21/2006 Entry ID: 2069892
-5-

fear of future persecution, and thus erred in denying him withholding of removal

under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). “A well-founded fear is one that is both subjectively

genuine and objectively reasonable.” Feleke v. INS, 118 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir.

1997). “Subjectively, the alien must demonstrate with credible evidence that he

genuinely fears persecution; objectively, he must demonstrate through credible, direct,

and specific evidence that a reasonable person in his position would fear persecution.”

Id. We review the IJ’s factual findings under the substantial evidence standard and

affirm unless the record evidence is “so compelling that no reasonable factfinder”

could fail to find for Surya. Ibrahim v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 1074, 1078 (8th Cir.

2006). To prove that he is eligible for withholding of removal, Surya must

demonstrate that “there is a clear probability that he would suffer future persecution,

in the country to which [he] will be removed, because of [his] race, religion,

nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Ngure v.

Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975, 989 (8th Cir. 2004). 

 

Assuming that Surya’s fear of returning to Indonesia is subjectively genuine,

he has not has not met his burden to demonstrate that there is a “clear probability” that

he would suffer future persecution. Id. Surya principally bases his claim of future

persecution on past events regarding his family, in particular the attack on his brother.

“[A]ttacks on family members, absent a pattern of persecution tied to the applicant,

do not establish a well-founded fear of persecution; nor do isolated acts of violence.”

Feleke, 118 F.3d at 598. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Surya

has not established any such pattern of persecution. In fact, the 2003 Country Report

on Human Rights Practices for Indonesia indicates that although relations between the

Madurese and Dayaks remain poor, there were no reports of killings during 2002, and

Surya’s sisters live unharmed with Dayak men. 

Further, Surya has not demonstrated that he could not move to another part of

Indonesia to avoid any perceived threats of persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(i)

(“In cases in which the applicant has not established past persecution, the applicant

Appellate Case: 05-2493 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/21/2006 Entry ID: 2069892
-6-

shall bear the burden of establishing that it would not be reasonable for him or her to

relocate . . . .”). The record in this case suggests that relocation is a reasonable option

because most of the violence between Dayaks and the Madurese were centered in

Kalimantan. In fact, Surya lived in Jakarta without incident on at least three different

occasions. Surya contends that he cannot relocate because of the transmigration

program that relocated his family to Kalimantan. However, Surya has not shown that

families that transmigrated to Kalimantan are required to remain there.

 Surya’s application for protection under Article 3 of the Convention Against

Torture suffers from similar deficiencies. “Torture requires the infliction of severe

pain or suffering, by or with the acquiescence of a public official.” Tolego v.

Gonzales, --- F.3d ---, 2006 WL 1725989, *3 (June 26, 2006). Surya has not shown

that any of the acts he complains of were committed by, at the direction of, or with the

acquiescence of public officials. He has not shown that the Indonesian government

was unwilling to address problems of ethnic violence between Dayaks and the

Madurese. In fact, Surya testified that he had no problems with the government of

Indonesia. Therefore, he has not demonstrated that he is entitled to relief under

Article 3.

For the foregoing reasons, we deny the petition for review.

______________________________ 

Appellate Case: 05-2493 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/21/2006 Entry ID: 2069892