2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-20-2008 

# Andok ho v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-4817

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Ando k ho v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1196. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1196I M G - 0 6 8 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 06- 4817

___________ M UL I ANAWAT I ANDOK HO, Pet i t i oner

v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 97- 976- 157) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e C har l es M . H oneym an

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M A Y 7, 2008 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , ST A PL E T O N A N D C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay20, 2008)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM M ul i anaw at i A ndohko, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of I ndones i a, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a deci s i on bythe B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) di s m i s s i ng herappea l of an i m m i gr at i on j udge’ s deni al of herappl i cat i on foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and2

r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e. Forthe fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e w i l l denyt he p e titio n f o r r e v ie w . A nd ok ho i s an app roxi m at el yforty -fi ve-y ear- old unm arr i ed fe m al e of C hinese e th n icity . S h e w a s a d m itt e d to th e U n ited S tate s in 2 0 0 3 a s a n o n -im m ig ra n t v isito r w ith author i zat i on t o r emai n i n t he U ni t ed St at es unt i l N ovember30, 2003, buts t ay ed bey ond thatdat e. O n February11, 2004, A ndohkho w as s erved w i th a N ot i ce t o A ppearchar gi ng h er w ith b eing su b

ject t o rem o v al pu rsua n t t o Im m igrati o n an d N ati o n ali tyA ct (IN A ) § 237( a) ( 1) ( B ) , 8 U . S. C . § 1227, forr emai ni ng i n the U ni t ed St at es bey ond the author i zed t i m e. A ndokho appl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde rthe C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rt u re (C A T ). I n s uppor tof herappl i cat i on, A ndokho t es t i fi ed bef or e the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) thats he w as ps y chol ogi cal l ytr aumat i zed byherexper i ence dur i ng the M ay 1998 r i ot s i n I ndones i a and a s a r es ul tof otheri nci dent s . O n M ay15, 1998, s he w as i n her offi ce i n J akart a w hen vi ol ence br oke outnearherbui l di ng. She es cape d fr om heroffi ce bui l di ng and hi d i n a nea rbyapart m entcompl ex. A ft era per i od of t i m e, A ndokho l efther hi di ng pl ace and w entt o a nea rbyhot el w her e s he s t ay ed forthr ee da y s . A ndokho w as n o t p h y sic a llya ttac k e d o r in ju re d d u rin g th e M a y1 9 9 8 rio ts. A n d o k h o a lso c laim e d to h av e b ee n im p ac ted p sy ch o log icall yb yan o ther riot at a u n iversityw h ere stud en ts w ere ki l l ed. A ndokho w as appar ent l ydi s turbed af t ers eei ng bl ood s t ai ns on the ca m pus aft er th e in c id e n t. A n d o k h o c laim e d sh e w a s f u rth e r tra u m a tize d w h e n sh e f o u n d o u t th a t a3

b o m b h a d e x p lo d e d in th e p a rk in g lo t w h e re s h e h e rs e lf h a d b e e n o n e w e e k b e f o re . A ndokho al s o t es t i fi ed aboutbei ng ups etbyr eport s of chur ch bombi ngs and r apes , as w e ll a s b yv a ri o u s a n o n ym o u s th re a ts s h e re c e iv e d . A s a r es ul tof thes e eve nt s , A ndokho t es t i fi ed thats he bec ame depr es s ed. She w ent t o see a d octori n Indo nesi a, w ho prescr i bed her vi t am i ns. In 200 2, A nd ok ho ’s bo ss gave he rs om e t i m e off

fora vac at i on s o thats he coul d come t o the U ni t ed St at es . A ft er r emai ni ng i n t he U ni t ed St at es forl es s than a mont h, s he r eturned t o I ndones i a. W hen her d e p r e s s i o n r e c u r r e d , s h e r e tu r n e d t o th e Un i t e d S t a t e s a y e a rl a t e ri n 2 0 0 3 . As o f th e t i me of herhear i ng befor e the I J , A ndokho had noty ets oughtps y chol ogi cal couns el i ng i n the U n ite d S ta te s . T he I J deni ed A ndokho’ s appl i cat i on foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde rC A T . T he I J found A ndokho t o be cr edi bl e, butdet erm i ned thats he had not s uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on. T he I J concl uded thatA ndokho di d notqual i fyas a r efuge e beca us e the ps y chol ogi cal harm s he s uffe r ed as a r es ul tof the M ay1998 r i ot s “has no nexus t o heri n t erm s of anyper s ecut ort ar get i ng heri ndi vi dual l y . ” The I J al s o concl uded thatthe otheri nci dent s s he des cr i bed di d notcons t i tut e per s ecut i on beca us e the harm t hey caus ed w as nots uffi ci ent l ys ever e. M or eover , the I J concl uded thatthe anonym ous thr eat s s he expe r i ence d di d notcons t i tut e pas tper s ecut i on beca us e theyw er e not s uffi ci ent l yi m m i nentorthr eat eni ng. I n addi t i on, the I J concl uded thatA ndokho had f a iled to e sta b lish a p a ttern o r p ra c tice o f p e rse c u tio n in In d o n e sia o r a re a so n a b leT he I J t ook j udi ci al not i ce of the 2004 C ountryR eporton H um an R i ght s Pr act i ces 1 a n d th e 2 0 0 4 In te rn a tio n a l R e lig io u s F re e d o m R e p o rt f o r I n d o n e s ia . 4 pr obabi l i tyof futur e per s ecut i on. I n thi s r egar d, the I J s t at ed thatther e i s “no patt ern or p ra c tice o f

p e rse c u tio n o f

C h in e se C h ristia n s in In d o n e sia a c c o rd in g to th e T h ird C irc u it and ther e i s nothi ng i n t hi s r ecor d t hatw oul d di s turb thatfi ndi ng t oday . ” T he I J fur t her 1 obs erved thatA ndokho’ s fami l yr emai ned i n I ndones i a and thatther e w as no evi dence th a t th e f a m ily h a d b e e n s p e c if

ic a lly ta rg e te d . T he B I A aff

i r m ed, fi ndi ng thatA ndokho fai l ed t o es t abl i s h thats he had be en p e rse c u ted in th e p a st, o r th a t sh e w o u ld b e p e rse c u ted in th e f u tu re , “a n d a lso f

a iled to m eetthe hi gherbur dens of pr oof forw i thhol di ng of r emoval and forr el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e. ” The B I A s peci fi cal l yr ej ect ed A ndkho’ s ar gum entthatt he Im m ig ra tio n J u d g e h a d im p ro p e rl yre lie d o n L ie v . A s h c ro f t, 3 9 6 F .3 d 5 3 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T h e B IA o b serv ed that the IJ h ad “c learly[tak en ] i n to co n side rati o n rec en t cou n try rep o rt s inf

o rm ati o n . . . an d p rop erlyfo u n d n o ind icati o n that the e v iden ce w o u ld req u ir e a re su ltd iffe ren t from the T h ir d C ir cu it ’s de cisi o n in L ie. ” F o ll o w ing the B IA ’s d is m is s a l o f

h e r a p p e a l, A n d o k h o f

ile d a tim e ly p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w in th is C o u rt . We e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w th e BI A’ s f i n a l o r d e ro f

r e mo v a l u n d e rI NA § 242( a) , 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) . B eca us e the B I A appea r s t o have s ubs t ant i al l yr el i ed on the f in d in g s o f

th e IJ , w e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w th e d e c is io n s o f b o th th e B IA a n d th e IJ . S e e X ie v . A s h c ro f

t, 3 5 9 F .3 d 2 3 9 , 2 4 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ).5

O urr evi ew of thes e dec i s i ons i s fors ubs t ant i al evi dence , cons i der i ng w hethert hey are “su p p o rt ed b yrea so n ab le, su b stan ti al, an d p rob ati v e e v iden ce o n the re co rd cons i der ed as a w hol e. ” B al as ubr amanr i m v. I N S, 143 F. 3d 157, 161 ( 3d C i r . 1998) (q u o tatio n o m itt e d ). T h e d e c isio n s m u st b e a f f irm e d “ u n les s th e e v id e n c e n o t o n ly s uppor t s a contr aryconcl us i on, butcompel s i t . ” Zubeda v. A s hcr oft , 333 F. 3d 463, 471 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (qu o tat ion o m itted). T he legal precepts un derl y i ng A nd ok ho ’s cl ai m are w el l est abli shed. To est abli sh el i gi bi l i tyforas y l um , an appl i cantm us tdemonstr at e pas tper s ecut i on ora w el l - founded fea rof per s ecut i on thati s both s ubj ect i vel yand obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e. Si ngh v. G onzal es , 406 F. 3d 191, 195 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . A n appl i cantw ho es t abl i s hes thats he has s u f f e r e d p a s tp e r s e c u t i o n o n a c c o u n to f o n e o f th e f i v e g r o u n d s e n u me r a t e d i n th e I NA “tr i gger s a r ebutt abl e pr es um pt i on of a w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on, as l ong as that fe ar is rel ated to the p ast p erse cu ti o n . ” Id . at 19 6 (cit ing 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 3 (b)(1 )) ( q u o t a t i o n o mi t t e d ) . Wh e r e a s a s y l u m i s d i s c r e t i o n a ry , wi th h o l d i n g o f r e mo v a l u n d e rI NA § 2 4 1 (b)(3 )(A ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 3 1 (b)(3 )(A ), is m an d atoryif th e a p p li ca n t m ee ts a m o re s tr i ngents t andar d – t hati ti s “more l i kel ythan not ” thats he w i l l be per s ecut ed on ac count of r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on i f deport ed t o hi s orherhom e country . I d. ( quot i ng L ukw ago v. I N S, 329 F. 3d 157, 182 (3d C i r. 20 03 )) . T o o btai n rel i ef un der the C on ven t i on A gainstT orture, an ap pli cant m ust es t abl i s h thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthats he w oul d be t or tur ed i f r emoved t o the6

pr opos ed countr yof r emoval . T our e v. A t t orneyG ener al of the U ni t ed St at es , 443 F. 3d 3 1 0 , 3 1 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). B efor e thi s C our t , A ndokho cont ends thatthe I J err ed i n fi ndi ng thather e x p e rie n c e s d id n o t rise to th e lev e l o f p a st p e rse c u tio n b e c a u se sh e “ se t f o rth in c o n sid e ra b le d e tail th e tra u m a sh e su f f e re d a s a re su lt o f

b e in g in su c h c lo se p ro x im ityto the r i ot s and [de m ons tr at ed] thatethni c C hi nes e w er e oft en t ar get ed dur i ng thes e r i ot s . ” A ndokho’ s ps y chol ogi cal tr auma as a r es ul tof her“cl os e pr oxi m i ty ” t o the r i ot s of M ay 1998 di d notcons t i tut e per s ecut i on. Per s ecut i on encompas s es onl ygr ave ha r m s s uch as “thr eat s t o l i fe, confi nement , t or tur e, and ec onom i c r es tr i ct i ons s o s ever e thatthey c o n s t i tu t e a th r e a tt o l i f e o rf r e e d o m. ” S e e F a t i n v . I NS , 12 F. 3d 1233, 1240 ( 3d C i r . 1993) . A ndokho w as notharm ed dur i ng the r i ot s and, as found bythe I J , s he w as not t ar get ed di r ect l ybya per s ecut or . A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude thatthe B I A ’ s det erm i nat i on thats he fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h t hats he s uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al e v id e n c e . N orhas A ndokho es t abl i s hed a w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on. A ndokho fai l ed to show that s he w ou l d b e i nd i vidual l ysi ng l ed o ut forpersecut i on or that there i s a p a tte rn o r p ra c tic e o f

p e rs e c u tio n a g a in s t C h in e s e C h ri s tia n s . S e e 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 3 (b )(2 )(iii)(A ). O n a p p e a l, A n d o k h o a rg u e s th a t “[ a ]s a C h in e se C h ristia n in I ndones i a, Pet i t i onercl ear l yi s s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed t o otherC hi nes e w ho have be en t ar get ed becau se of t heiret hn i ci ty . ” W e hav e previ ou sl yheld that vi olence dir ect ed ag ai nstIn h e r p e tit io n f o r re v iew , A n d o k h o a lso re f e re n c e d a d u e p ro c e ss c laim , b u t th is 2 c laim w a s n o t ra ise d o r d isc u ss e d in h e r su p p o rtin g b rie f. T h e re f o re , w e d e e m th is c laim to b e w a iv e d . S e e V e n te v . G o n z a les , 4 1 5 F .3 d 2 9 6 , 2 9 9 n .3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). In a n ye v e n t, h e r d u e p ro c e s s c la im is w ith o u t m e ri t. 7 C h in e se C h ristia n s in In d o n e sia “ d o e s n o t ap p e a r to b e su f f icie n tlyw id e sp re a d a s to cons t i tut e a pa t t ern orpr act i ce, ” Li e, 396 F. 3d at537, and agr ee w i th the B I A thatthe re c o rd in th is c a s e d o e s n o t w a rr a n t a c o n tr a ry c o n c lu s io n . B eca us e w e conc l ude thatA ndokho has fai l ed t o es t abl i s h herel i gi bi l i tyfor a sy lu m , w e n e c e ss a rilyc o n c lu d e th a t sh e h a s n o t sa tisf ied th e m o re strin g e n t re q u ire m e n ts fo r w ith h o lding o f re m o v al. S ee P aripo v ic v. G o n za les, 4 1 8 F . 3 d 2 4 0 , 2 4 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). W ith re sp e c t to h e r C A T c laim , A n d o k h o h a s f a iled to d e m o n stra te th a t sh e is lik e lyto b e to rtu re d b y , o r w ith th e a c q u ies c e n c e o f , g o v e rn m e n t o f

f icia ls if re m o v e d to Ind o n esia. S ee 8 C . F . R . § § 1 2 0 8 . 1 6 (c), 1 2 0 8 . 1 8 (a). 2 F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .