O n Sept ember17, 2007, Pet erD . K ei s l erbeca m e the A ct i ng A t t or ney * G e n e ra l. In a c c o rd a n c e w ith R u le 4 3 (c )(2 ) o f th e F e d e ra l R u les o f

A p p e llate P ro c e d u re , M r. K e isle r is s u b stitu ted fo r A lb e rto R . G o n z a les a s th e a p p e llee in t hi s act i on. A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned ** unani m ous l yt o gr antt he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w i t h Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### S e p t e m b e r 26, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT

M A RL I A N I SI TO RU S, P eti ti o n er, v. PE T E R D . K E I SL E R , A ct i ng A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, * R e sp o n d e n t. N o. 07- 9500 ( N o. A 96- 095- 870) ( P e t i t i o n fo rRe v i e w)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T ** B efor e HA RTZ , C ir c u it J u d g e , BROR BY , Seni orC i r cui tJ udge, and TY M KOVI CH , C i r cui tJ udge.

M ar l i ani Si t orus pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a de ci s i on byan i m m i gr at i on j udge ( “I J ”) , aff

i r m ed byt he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) , deny i ng herM s . Si t orus ’ s par ent s have s i nce c om e bac k t o the U ni t ed St at es and fi l ed 1 t h e i ro wn a p p l i c a t i o n s fo ra s y l u m, wh i c h we r e a p p a r e n t l ys t i l l p e n d i n g a tt h e t i me of herhear i ng. -2- appl i cat i ons foras y l um and r es t r i ct i on on r emoval underthe I m m i gr at i on and N ati o n ali tyA ct (“IN A ”) a n d the U n it ed N ati o n s C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re (“ C A T ” ). A n In d o n e sia n c iti z e n a n d n a tio n a l, M s. S ito ru s c laim s th a t if s h e is for ced t o r etur n t o herhom e country , s he w i l l be per s ecut ed bec aus e of he r C hr i s t i an fa i t h. T he I J deni ed herappl i cat i on foras y l um as unt i m el yand deni ed al l r eques t ed r el i ef be caus e s he fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h el i gi bi l i ty . E xer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on under8 U . S. C . § 1252, w e denythe pet i t i on. I . BA CKGROUND M s . Si t orus fi r s tcame t o the U ni t ed St at es i n 1993 att he age of 16, w hen s he and he rm ot hert r avel ed t o T ucs on, A r i zona, t o j oi n herfather , w ho w as stu d y in g a t th e U n iv e rsityo f A riz o n a . In 1 9 9 5 sh e g ra d u a ted f ro m h ig h sc h o o l in T u c so n a n d re tu rn e d to In d o n e sia b rie flyto o b tain a stu d e n t v isa so th a t sh e c o u ld cont i nue hers tudi es i n t he U ni t ed St at es . U pon herr etur n t o T ucs on, s he at t ended c ol l ege, eventual l yearni ng a bac hel or ’ s degr ee i n m us i c fr om t he U ni ver s i t yof A r i zona. H erpar ent s r etur ned t o I ndones i a i n 1996. 1 M s . Si t orus cl ai m s t hati n I ndones i a s he fa ces har as s m ent , abus e, ext or t i on, r ape, and eve n death att he hands of M us l i m extr emi s t s . B eca us e al l I ndones i ans a re re q u ire d to c a rryid e n tific a tio n c a rd s b e a rin g th e ir re lig io u s fa ith , sh e w o u ld n o tb e a b l e t o c o n c e a l t h e fa c tt h a ts h e i s a p r a c t i c i n g Ch r i s t i a n . An d s h e c l a i ms-3-

t hatt he I ndones i an governm ent , w hi ch i t s el f i s compri s ed overw hel m i ngl yof M us l i m s , cannotorw i l l notpr ot ectthe nat i on’ s C hr i s t i an mi nor i ty . M s . Si t orus conce des t hats he her s el f has neverbeen a t ar getof r el i gi ous vi ol ence . B utbas ed o n th e e x p e rie n c e s o f

h e r p a re n ts a n d f

rie n d s, sh e fe a rs th a t sh e w ill b e tar g e ted if s he i s for ced t o r etur n t o I ndones i a. She al s o t es t i fi ed thateven though s he w as s par ed phy s i cal harm w hen i n I ndones i a, s he w as s ubj ect ed t o har as s m entand di s cr i m i nat i on beca us e of he rC hr i s t i ani ty . H erel ement arys chool y ear s , m os tof w h ich w e re sp e n t at p u b lic s c h o o ls, w e re m a rre d b yd isc rim in a tio n a n d ill t r eatm enton acc ountof herfai t h. A nd thr oughouthers chool i ng s he and other C h ristia n s w e re “ tre a ted lik e se c o n d -c las s c iti z e n s” b yp re d o m in a n tlyM u slim t eac her s and cl as s m at es . A dm i n. R . at1220. A l though hert eac her s knew that s he w as bei ng har as s ed and a bus ed, theydi d nothi ng t o s t op i tbeca us e theyt oo w e re M u slim . S h e w a s fo rc e d to a tten d M u slim re lig io n c las se s a n d re p e a ted ly su bjec ted to a n ti-C h ristia n se rm o n s a n d a ttem p ts to c o n v e rt h e r to Isla m . T h is typ e o f a b u s e c o n tin u e d u n til s h e le f t I n d o n e s ia fo r t h e U n ite d S ta te s . In D ecem ber 199 7 M s. S i t orus r eturned to Indon esi a t o v i si ther parent s. She s ai d t hats he had “ neverbeen s o s car ed i n I ndones i a. ” Id. at1221. T he stre e ts o f

Ja k a rta , w h e re h e r p a re n ts liv e d , w e re f u ll o f d e m o n stra to rs, m a k in g it uns afe t o t r avel , and the M us l i m s i n hernei ghbor hood pr event ed herchur ch fr om h o ld in g C h ristm a s s e rv ice s. S h e c laim s th a t itw a s s o d a n g e ro u s fo r C h ristia n s to be outand aboutt hatherpar ent s keptheri ns i de. She “fe l ttr apped w i th no-4-

fr eedoms a nd no abi l i t yt o pr act i ce [ her ] chos en fa i th and [s he] w as offe nded that [s he] coul d notdo anyt hi ng t o pr ot ect[her s el f] or[her ] r el i gi on. ” Id . S h e sa id t hats i nce s he “r etur ned t o t he U ni t ed St at es i n J anuaryof 1998, [s he has ] not dar ed t o l eave . ” Id . W hen hers tudentvi s a expi r ed, herempl oy erfi l ed an H - 1B appl i cat i on on herbehal f s eeki ng t o change heri m m i gr at i on s t atus fr om s tudent t o s p e c i a l t yo c c u p a t i o n wo r k e r , b u tth a tr e q u e s twa s d e n i e d i n J a n u a ry2 0 0 2 . On Sept ember30, 2002, M s . Si t orus fi l ed herappl i cat i on foras y l um and r es tr i ct i on o n re m o v a l. A t a h e a ri n g o n J u ly 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 , th e IJ d e n ie d M s . S ito ru s ’s a p p lic a tio n . Fi r s t , he found thats he had fai l ed t o fi l e foras y l um w i thi n one y earof herarr i val i n t he U ni t ed St at es , as r equi r ed by8 U . S. C . § 1158( a) ( 2) ( B ) , and thatno extr aor di naryorexce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s j us t i fi ed herl at e fi l i ng. Second, he found thats he had “ fai l ed t o s how pas tper s ecut i on ora w el l - founded fearof per s ecut i on w i t hi n t he meani ng of the I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ct . ” Id. at 57. W i t h r es pectt o t hi s l at t erfi ndi ng, the I J expl ai ned thatal though he bel i eved M s. S ito ru s’s tes tim o n y , the re sim p lyw a s n o t en o u g h e v id e n c e to su p p o rt a fin d in g th a t m o re lik e lyth a n n o t sh e w o u ld b e p e rse c u ted o n a c c o u n t o f h e r fa ith i f s he r etur ned t o I ndones i a. T he I J t ook not e of the evi dence thatM s . Si t orus s ubm i t t ed conc erni ng t he i nt err el i gi ous vi ol ence thathas pl agued I ndones i a s i nce 1998, butfound i ti ns uffi ci entt o demonstr at e thats he w oul d be s i ngl ed outfor per s ecut i on. H e al s o s ai d t hats he coul d avoi d r el i gi ous per s ecut i on byr es et t l i ng-5-

i n an ar ea of

I ndones i a thati s pr edomi nant l yC hr i s t i an and thatther e w as no evi dence t hats he coul d notr el ocat e t o s uch an a r ea. I n addi t i on, the I J expr es s ed doubtbeca us e of M s . Si t orus ’ s r etur n tr i ps t o I ndones i a, s ugges t i ng thata per s on t rul yi n fea rforherl i fe w oul d nothave r etur ned t o the countryof per s ecut i on: I tdoes n’ tm ake a nys ens e atal l t o thi s C our tthatanybodyw oul d be in h er situ ati o n , w h ere theyco u ld p erse cu te he r, theyco u ld k il l her, t heycoul d r ape he r , orw hat evertheydo, then s he goes back on v a c a tio n o n tw o o c c a sio n s. T h a t d o e sn ’t so u n d lo g ica l to th is c o u rt. Id. a t 5 9 . T h e IJ f

u rth e r c o n c lu d e d th a t g iv e n M s. S ito ru s’s fa ilu re to d e m o n stra te eli g ibil ityfo r asy lum , sh e n ec essa ri lyfa il ed to sa ti sfythe m o re stri n g en t st an d ard appl i cabl e t o a r eques tforr es t r i ct i on on r emoval . H e al s o deni ed r el i ef unde rt he C A T . O n D ece m ber14, 2006, t he B I A i s s ued a br i ef or deraff i r m i ng and adopt i ng t he I J ’ s deci s i on and di s m i s s i ng the appe al . I tconcurr ed i n the I J ’ s fi ndi ng that M s . Si t orus ’ s as y l um appl i cat i on w as unt i m el yand al s o thats he “fai l ed t o s how change d condi t i ons under8 C . F. R . § 1208. 4( a) ( 4) orextr aor di naryci r cumst ance s under8 C . F. R . § 1208. 4( a) ( 5) . ” Id. at3. T he B I A al s o agr eed w i th the I J that M s . Si t orus ’ s fai l ur e t o s how pas tper s ecut i on ora cl earpr obabi l i tyof per s ecut i on w as fatal t o h er req u est fo r restr ict ion o n rem o v al. A n d itco n cu rred in the IJ’s d e n ia l o f

re lie f u n d e r t h e C A T .-6-

I I . DI S CU S S I ON T h e B IA issue d it s d ec isi o n b ya b ri ef o rde r si g n ed b ya sin g le bo ard m e m b e r. See 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 1( e) ( 5) . W e ther efor e r evi ew t he B I A ’ s deci s i on as t he fi nal or derof r emoval but“maycons ul tt he I J ’ s opi ni on t o the ext entt hatt he B I A r el i ed upon ori ncorpor at ed i t . ” Sar rv. G onz al es , 474 F. 3d 783, 790 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). “O u r du tyis t o g u ara n tee tha t fac tual d eterm ination s are s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al and pr obat i ve evi dence cons i der i ng the rec o rd a s a w h o le. A g en cyfin d ing s o f fac t are co n clus ive u n less the re co rd d e m o n stra tes th a t an yre a so n a b le a dju d ica to r w o u ld b e c o m p e lled to c o n c lu d e to t he contr ary . ” Id. at788–89 ( br acke t s , ci t at i on, and i nt ernal quot at i on m arks o m itte d ). W e re v ie w th e a g e n c y ’s le g a l c o n c lu s io n s d e n o v o . See Tul engkey v. G onz al es , 4 2 5 F . 3 d 1 2 7 7 , 1 2 8 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). A . A s yl um M s. S ito ru s’s a sy lu m a p p lica tio n w a s d e n ied b e c a u se sh e fa iled to file it w i t hi n one y earof herJ anuary1998 arr i val i n the U ni t ed St at es . I n thi s courts he does notchal l enge thatdet erm i nat i on, s o w e mustdenyherpet i t i on i ns ofaras s he s e e k s r e v i e w o f

t h e d e n i a l o f

a s y l u m. B . R es t ri ct i on on R em oval R e s tr ic tio n o n re m o v a l, p re v io u s ly ca lle d w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l, s ee Wira n sa n e v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 6 6 F . 3 d 8 8 9 , 8 9 2 n . 1 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ), pr ohi bi t s t he rem o v al of

“a n ali en to a c o u n tryif th e A tt o rne yG en era l dec ides that the a li en ’s-7-

l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened i n thatcountrybeca us e of the a lien ’s . . . relig io n .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 (b )(3 )(A ). “I n o rd e r to d e m o n stra te el i gi bi l i t yfor[r es t r i ct i on on r emoval ] , the appl i cantm us tes t abl i s h a cl ear p ro b a b ili tyo f

p e rse c u tio n th ro u g h p re se n tatio n o f e v id e n c e e sta b lish in g th a t itis m or e l i kel yt han notthatt he appl i cantw oul d be s ubj ectt o per s ecut i on. ” Wo ld e me s ke lv . I

NS , 257 F. 3d 1185, 1193 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ( br acke t s and i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . R es t r i ct i on on r emoval i s notavai l abl e t o an appl i cant w ho has m ade no s how i ng of pas tper s ecut i on i f the I J “fi nds thatthe appl i cant coul d avoi d . . . futur e [pe r s ecut i on] . . . byr el ocat i ng t o anotherpartof the pr opos ed countr yof r emoval and, underal l the ci r cumst ance s , i tw oul d be re a so n a b le to e x p e c t th e a p p lica n t to d o so .” 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 6 (b )(2 ); s ee i d. § 1 2 0 8 .1 6 (b )( 3 )( i) (a p p lic a n t b e a rs b u rd e n o f p e rs u a s io n ). A lth o u g h M s. S ito ru s w a s h a ra ss e d in e lem e n tar ysc h o o l b yh e r M u slim cl as s m at es and t eac her s , not hi ng thathappene d t o herr i s es t o the l evel of p e rs e c u tio n . See Tul engkey , 425 F. 3d at1280–81. A s forhercl ai m bas ed on a fear of fu ture persecut i on att he h and s of M usl i m extr em i st s, w e need add res s onl yone gr ound upon w hi ch thi s cl ai m w as r ej ect ed— the ava i l abi l i tyof re lo c a tio n w ith in In d o n e s ia . T h e IJ fo u n d th a t th e re a re so m e a re a s o f In d o n e sia th a t ar e p re d o m in a n tly C hr i s t i an and thatM s . Si t orus t her efor e does notfac e a thr eatof per s ecut i on c o u n tryw id e . H e f

u rth e r c o n c lu d e d , b a se d o n th e re c o rd , tha t th e re w a s n o th in g to-8-

p r e v e n tM s . S i t o ru s f

r o m r e l o c a t i n g t o a p r e d o mi n a n t l yCh r i s t i a n a r e a . Ou ro wn re v iew o f

th e re c o rd d o e s n o t co m p e l u s to c o n c lu d e o th e rw ise . In d e e d , S tate D epart m entr eport s s ubm i t t ed byM s . Si t orus i ndi cat e thatM us l i m s ar e a di s t i nct m i nor i t yi n “Papua, B al i , E as tN us a Tenggar a, and part s of N or th Sum atr a and N o rth S u law e si.” A d m in . R . at 1 1 0 4 ; s ee i d. at1088. I f M s . Si t orus has r eas ons w hys he ca nnotr el ocat e t o anyof thes e ar eas , s he fa i l ed t o pr es entthem. N or d o e s h e r b ri e f

o n a p p e a l r a is e a n ys p e c ific c h a lle n g e to th e IJ ’s re lo c a tio n fin d in g . I ns t ead, s he as s ert s onl ygener al l y , w i thoutanyr efe r ence t o the r el ocat i on fin d ing , “tha t C h ri sti an s are d iscri m inated ag ains t as a c lass thro u g h o u t th e e n ti re countr yof I ndones i a, w her e theyr epr es enta mi nor i tyi nt erm i t t ent l yand d isc rim in a telyth ro u g h o u t it s p a st a n d p re se n t h isto ry .” P e t’r B r. at 2 1 . T h is is in s u ffic ie n t to c o n v in c e u s to o v e rt u rn th e IJ ’s re lo c a tio n fin d in g . See Tul engkey , 425 F. 3d at1282 ( uphol di ng deni al of r es tr i ct i on on r emoval w hen “the I J found r el ocat i on t o be pos s i bl e and pe t i t i oner s poi nt [ed] t o no evi dence thatr el ocat i on w oul d be unr eas onabl e”) . U nderthes e ci r cumst ance s M s . Si t orus ’ s “cl ai m of a w el l - founded fearof futur e per s ecut i on nece s s ar i l yfai l s . ” Id. C. Re l i e f

u n d e r t h e CAT A lth o u g h M s. S ito ru s’s b rie f in th is c o u rt m e n tio n s th e C A T in a h e a d in g in t he t abl e of c ont ent s , no headi ng i n the br i ef i t s el f m ent i ons t he C A T , and w e fi nd no argum ent i n the bri ef t hat s he h as been t ortured, faces t orture, or i s ot herw i se-9-

ent i t l ed t o r el i ef unde rt he C A T . W e ther efor e nee d notaddr es s the B I A ’ s rul i ng on her C A T cl ai m s. I I I . CO NC L US I ON We d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n fo rr e v i e w. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt H a rris L H a rtz C i r cui tJ udge