2010 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 9-2-2010 

# O ei 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 . 09-2883

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_2010

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 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 " O ei v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 649. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/649NOT 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. 09- 2883

_____________ M IE J IN G O E I, 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, R es pondent

Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls B I A N o. A 079- 318- 493 I m m i gr at i on J udge: W i l l i am V an W yke

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

on J ul y12, 1010 B efore: R E N D E L L , JO R D A N , and G R E E N A W A Y , JR . C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: Sept ember2, 2010)

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge.

M i e J i ng O ei pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a f i nal or derof r emoval r ender ed byA n a lie n m u s t a p p ly f o r a s y lu m w ith in o n e y e a r o f a rr iv in g in th e U n ite d S ta te s . 1 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 5 8 (a)(2)(B ). A n unt i m el yappl i cat i on foras y l um m aybe cons i der ed i f the al i en fa ced 2 “ e x tr a o rd in a ry c ir c u m s ta n c e s ” re la te d to th e d e la yin f ilin g . 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (a )( 2 )( D ). 2 the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) . Forthe r eas ons thatfol l ow , w e w i l l denyt he p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. O e i, an e th n ica llyC h in e se c iti z e n o f In d o n e sia , en ter e d th e U n ited S tate s in 1 9 9 9 w ith a six -m o n th v isito r v isa . A f ter a rriv in g in th e U n ited S tate s, O e i f irst liv e d in H arr i s bur g, Penns y l vani a, w her e s he w or ked as a ca r et akerforan el der l yw om an. U pon m o v in g to P h ilad e lp h ia in M a rc h 2 0 0 1 , O e i lea rn e d f ro m sp e a k in g w ith o th e r im m ig ra n ts thats he nee ded t o t ake s t eps t o s t ayi n t he countr y . O ei fi l ed an unt i m el yappl i cat i on for as y l um a y earand tw o w eeks aft erhervi s a had e xpi r ed. I n herappl i cat i on, O ei cl ai m ed 1 th a t s h e w a s p e rs e c u te d in In d o n e s ia a s a C h in e s e C h ri s tia n .

O n A p ril 2 5 , 2 0 0 2 , the Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e (“ IJ” ) f o u n d th a t, pu rsu a n t to 8 U . S. C . § 1158( a) ( 2) ( D ) , t he unt i m el i nes s of O ei ’ s as y l um appl i cat i on w as excus ed due t o “extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s . ” T he I J expl ai ned thatw hi l e i n H arr i s bur g, O ei w as 2 extr emel yi s ol at ed, and thats he appl i ed foras y l um w i thi n a r eas onabl e t i m e af t erl earni ng thati tw as r equi r ed i f s he w ant ed t o s t ayi n t he countr y . T he I J then found thatO ei had a w el l - founded f

earof per s ecut i on as a C hi nes e Pent ecos t al l i vi ng i n I ndones i a, and gr ant ed her asy l um . T he IJ denied O ei ’s requestfor prot ect i on un der the C on ven t i on A gainst T or tur e bec aus e he di d notfi nd t hati tw as m or e l i kel ythan notthats he w oul d be t or tur ed3

if s h e re tu rn e d to In d o n e s ia .

O n N ovember15, 2007, the B I A r ever s ed the I J ’ s as y l um det erm i nat i on but gr ant ed O ei vol unt arydepartur e. T he B I A found thatcompar ed t o t he ci r cumst ance s fac i ng otheri m m i gr ant s s eeki ng as y l um , O ei ’ s ci r cumst ance s w er e notextr aor di naryand thus herappl i cat i on w as unt i m el y . O ei fi l ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew and w e hel d t hatthe B I A err ed byengagi ng i n de novo r evi ew of the I J ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs and r emanded the cas e t o the B I A . O n r emand, t he B I A det erm i ned thatthe I J ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs w er e not cl ear l yerr oneous . T he B I A t hen r evi ew ed de novo the I J ’ s appl i cat i on of the l aw t o the fac t s as found byt he I J , and det erm i ned thatO ei ’ s appl i cat i on w as unt i m el yas s he di d not sa tisf yth e “ e x tra o rd in a ryc irc u m sta n c e s” e x c e p tio n . C o n se q u e n tly , the B IA a g a in v a c a te d O e i’ s g ra n t o f

a s y lu m a n d e x te n d e d h e r p e ri o d o f v o lu n ta ry d e p a rt u re . O e i f iled a n o th e r p e tit io n f

o r re v iew c laim in g th a t th e B IA in c o rre c tly appl i ed a de novo stan d ard o f re v iew to the IJ’s find ing that O ei m et th e e x tr ao rdin ary c ir c u m s ta n c e e x c e p tio n to e x c u s e h e r u n tim e ly f ilin g f o r a s y lu m . W e d o n o t hav e jurisdicti o n to rev iew the B IA ’s or the IJ’s discretion ary d e te rm in a tio n th a t O e i d id n o t s a tis f yth e e x tr a o rd in a ry c ir c u m s ta n c e e x c e p tio n . See Sukw anputr a v. G onz al es , 4 3 4 F . 3 d 6 2 7 , 6 3 5 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( h o l d i n g th a t8 U. S . C. § 1158( a) ( 3) “di ves t [s ] t he courtof appe al s of j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew a dec i s i on r egar di ng w hetheran ali en est abli shed ch ang ed o r extraor dinaryci rcum st ances t hat w ou l d ex cuse h i s u n t i me l yf

i l i n g . ” ) . Ho we v e r , we h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w q u e s t i o n s o f l a w,4

inclu d ing w h ethe r th e B IA ap p li ed the c o rrect st an d ard o f re v iew to the IJ’s d e ter m in a tio n s. 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(D ); s ee Pare j a v. A t t ’ y G en. , _ F. 3d _ , N o. 08- 4598, 2010 W L 2947239 at*4 ( 3d C i r . J ul y29, 2010) . T he B I A m ayr evi ew q u e stio n s o f

law , d isc re tio n , an d ju d g m e n t d e n o v o . 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .1 (d )( 3 )( ii) . B ec au se a p p ly ing the f

ac ts t o d eterm ine w h ethe r an ali en estab li sh ed “e x tr ao rdin ary c ir c u m s ta n c e s ” is a d is c re tio n a ry d e c is io n , see Sukw an pu tra , 434 F. 3d at635, de novo r evi ew w as pr oper . T hus , t he B I A us ed the appr opr i at e s t andar d and w e w i l l D E N Y t he p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .