2005 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 7-26-2005 

# S ujono 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 . 04-1037

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_2005

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 2005 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 " S uj ono v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 782. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/782NOT 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. 04- 1037 DANI E L S UJ ONO Pet i t i oner

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES; BU REA U O F CI TI ZENSHI P AN D I M M I GR ATI ON SERVI CES

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 ( B oar d N o. A 79 326 585)

Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

on 11/ 15/ 04 B efore: R O T H , S M ITH , and W E IS, C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: J ul y26, 2005)

OP I NI ON2

R O T H , C i r cui tJ udge: D ani el Suj ono arr i ved i n t he U ni t ed St at es on oraboutO ct ober15, 2002 as a noni m m i gr antB - 2 vi s i t orw i th author i zat i on t o r emai n i n the U ni t ed St at es unt i l J anuary13, 2001. T he form erI m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce ( I N S) s erved Suj ono w i th a N ot i ce t o A ppearon A ugus t20, 2000, char gi ng thathe had r emai ned i n the U ni t ed St at es bey ond the dat e author i zed byhi s vi s a. A ppear i ng w i th couns el , Suj ono admi t t ed the c h a r g e s a n d c o n c e d e d th a th e wa s s u b j e c tt o r e mo v a l , wh e r e u p o n h e r e q u e s t e d a s y l u m, w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l an d re lief

u n d e r th e C o n v e n tio n A g a in st T o rtu re (C A T ). H is re q u e sts w e re b a se d o n a lleg a tio n s o f p a st a n d p o ten tial re lig io u s p e rse c u tio n in Indon esi a. F oll ow i ng an ad m i nis trat i ve rem ov al heari ng , the Im m i grat i on Judg e (I J) deni ed Suj ono anyr el i ef. T he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( B I A ) aff i r m ed the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s deci s i on w i thoutopi ni on. Suj ono fi l ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew of that d e c is io n . A tthe t i m e of hi s arr i val i n t he U ni t ed St at es , Suj ono w as m arr i ed, buthi s w i fe rem ai ned beh i nd i n Indo nesi a. S ujono is et hn i c C hinese and Java nese an d w as r ai sed as a M us l i m . Suj ono cl ai m s he conve r t ed t o C hr i s t i ani tyi n 1993, aft erexper i enci ng s ever al sp iritua l v isio n s. H e m e t h is f u tu re w if e sh o rtlyth e re a f

ter , an d sh e c o n v e rte d to C hr i s t i ani typr i ort o t hei rm arr i age. T heyl i ved i n a l ar gel yM us l i m t ow n i n B orneo and fre q u en tl yh eld C h ri sti an F ell o w sh ip at their ho m e. S u jon o test ifi ed that h is ne igh b o rs r out i nel ydi s turbed thes e meet i ngs . O utof fe arthathe and hi s w i fe c oul d fac e gr eat er3

per s ecut i on, theym oved t o J akart a and be came i nvol ved i n a Pent ecos t al C hr i s t i an chur ch. A ppr oxi m at el ytw o y ear s l at er , Suj ono appl i ed fora vi s a and pa s s por tand l eftfor the U ni t ed St at es w i thouti nform i ng hi s w i fe. Si nce a rr i vi ng i n the U ni t ed St at es , Suj ono c o n tin u e s to c o rr e s p o n d w ith h is w if e b yte le p h o n e a n d m a il. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o § 242( a) of the I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ct ( “I N A ) , 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) t o r evi ew t i m el yfi l ed pet i t i ons forr evi ew of fi nal or der s of th e B IA . W e h a v e p le n a ry re v ie w o f a c h a lle n g e to a f

f ir m a n c e w ith o u t o p in io n (A W O ). D ia v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 5 3 F . 3 d 2 2 8 , 2 3 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( en banc ) . W hen the B I A aff i r m s t he deci s i on of the I J w i thoutopi ni on, w e r evi ew the I J ’ s deci s i on as the fi nal agenc y d e te m in a tio n . Id . a t 2 4 5 . A s to th e d e n ial o f a sy lu m b a se d o n a n a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on, w e i nqui r e w hetherthe I J ’ s det erm i nat i on “w as appr opr i at el ybas ed on in c o n s is te n t s ta te m e n ts , c o n tr a d ic to ry e v id e n c e s a n d in h e re n tly im p ro b a b le te s tim o n y. . . i n vi ew of the bac kgr ound evi dence on countrycondi t i ons . ” Id . at249. T o r ever s e a r ej ect i on of a c l ai m foras y l um orw i thhol di ng of r emoval , w e mustconcl ude that“no r eas onabl e fa ctfi ndercoul d m ake the fi ndi ng on the admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d. ” Id . Suj ono’ s cont ent i on thatthe A W O i s s ued bythe B I A vi ol at ed hi s r i ghtt o due pr oces s underthe Four t eenth A m endmentfai l s underourdeci s i on i n D ia . I n D ia , we hel d that“the s tr eaml i ni ng of r egul at i ons [i ncl udi ng A W O ’ s ] do notvi ol at e the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of the C ons t i tut i on. ” I d. at238. C ons i s t entw i th thi s hol di ng, w e her eby r e j e c tS u j o n o ’ s d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m.4

A s forthe deni al of the cl ai m s foras y l um and w i thhol di ng of r emoval , undert he c u rre n t sta tu to ryre g im e , S u jo n o h a s th e b u rd e n o f

su p p o rtin g h is c laim th ro u g h c re d ib le te s tim o n ya t a ll s ta g e s o f th e p ro c e e d in g s . See 8 C . F. R . § 208. 13( a) . T he I J m us tw ei gh th e te s tim o n yf

o r c re d ib ility c o m p ri s in g th e h e a rt o f th e a p p lic a n t’ s c a s e . S e e id . C ons equent l y , a fi ndi ng thatthe appl i canti s notcr edi bl e w i l l r es ul ti n a fa i l ur e t o pr es ent

“ s u f f ic ie n t” e v id e n c e to s u p p o rt th e a p p lic a n t’ s b u rd e n o f p ro o f. See G a o v . A sh c ro ft , 2 9 9 F .3 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). H er e, the I J ’ s concl us i on thatSuj ono w as notcr edi bl e w as s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al e v id e n c e o n tw o c ritica l issu e s o f h is c a se . F irst, S u

jo n o d id n o t p ro v id e a d e q u a te do cum entat i on est abli shi ng his C hinese ethn i ci ty , on e of the m aj or point s of co ntr ov ers y i n hi s cas e. Fur therm or e, hi s t es t i m onycontr adi ct ed the evi dence pr es ent ed athi s hear i ng re g a rd in g th is is s u e , le a d in g to q u e s tio n s a b o u t h is c re d ib ility. Second, the I J ’ s concl us i on thatSuj ono’ s cl ai m of r el i gi ous per s ecut i on “cont ai ned o m is s io n s a n d in c o n s is te n t s ta te m e n ts ” w a s s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . S p e c if ica lly , the IJ f

o u n d th a t S u

jo n o ’s s tate m e n ts re g a rd in g h is c o n v e rsio n f ro m Isla m to C h r i s t i a n i ty, a n d h i s w i l l i n g n e s s t o k e e p h i s M u s l i m n a m e a f t e rc o n v e r t i n g t o C h r i s t i a n i ty, s ever el yhi nder ed hi s cr edi bi l i ty . T he I J not ed that , w hi l e thes e i ncons i s t enci es s t andi ng al one w er e notdi s pos i t i ve of a n adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on, “the numer ous di s cr epanc i es , om i s s i ons , and ambi gui t i es i n [Suj ono’ s ] s t oryw eake n hi s over al l cl ai m . ” M o re o v e r, th e B IA h a s s trictlylim ited th e c o n f in e s o f re lig io u s o r p o lit ica l5

“per s ecut i on” t o “s er i ous thr eat s t o l i fe orfr eedom orthe i nfl i ct i on of s i gni fi cantharm on the appl i cant , as a means of puni s hm entforhol di ng a cha r act er i s t i c thatthe per s ecut or s eeks t o over come. ” S e e M a ttero f A c o sta , 1 9 I. & N . D ec . 2 1 1 , 2 3 3 (B IA 1 9 8 5 ), m odi f i ed on othergr ounds , M at t erof Moghar r abi , 1 9 I. & N . D e c . 4 3 9 , 4 4 6 (B IA 1 9 8 7 ). I n thi s cas e, Suj ono has fai l ed t o demonstr at e s uch per s ecut i on. Suj ono cl ai m s onl yt hat he w as t aunt ed and “ beatup” as a chi l d beca us e of hi s r el i gi ous bel i efs , butthats uch har as s m ents ubs i ded bythe t i m e he w as an adul t . Fur therm or e, the fa ct s s uppor t i ng S u jo n o ’s m o re re c e n t alle g a tio n s o f re lig io u s p e rse c u tio n d o n o t m e e t th e re q u isite stan d ard set fo rth b ythe B IA . S u jon o claim s tha t his C h ri sti an F ell o w sh ip m ee ti n g s w ere oft en i nt errupt ed bydi s s ent i ng nei ghbor s , buthe onl yci t es one i ns t ance of m i nor v a n d a lism to su p p o rt h is a rg u m e n t. S u c h n a m e c a lli n g d o e s n o t m e e t th e re q u isite s t andar d of “pe r s ecut i on. ” Fur therm or e, the I J di d noterri n di s m i s s i ng Suj ono’ s ar gum entthathe w oul d fac e per s ecut i on i f for ced t o r eturn t o hi s nat i ve I ndones i a. Suj ono’ s as s ert i ons r egar di ng s uch fea r s ar e uns uppor t ed byanyevi dence i n the r ecor d. F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , S u

jo n o ’s p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w is d e n ie d b yth e C o u rt .