2006 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 6-19-2006 

# I skande r 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 . 05-2726

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_2006

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 2006 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 " I skande r v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 883. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/883H o n o rab le T h o m as M . R ea v ley , S en ior C ir cu itJu d g e o f th e U n it ed S tat es C o u rt * of A ppeal s fort he Fi fth C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 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. 05- 2726 S UHA RDI I S KAN DER,

Pet i t i oner v. A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L O F T H E U N IT E D S T A T E S , S E CR E T AR Y OF DE P AR T M E NT OF HOMEL AND S E CU RI T Y, R e sp o n d e n ts 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 ( A gencyN o. A 79- 310- 925) I m m i gr at i on J udge: C har l es M . H oneym an Subm i t t ed pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 16, 2006 B efore: F ISH E R , C H A G A R E S , and R E A V L E Y , C i rcui tJudg es. * ( Fi l ed: J une 19, 2006)2 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge:

Pet i t i onerSuhar di I s kanderi s an ethni c C hi nes e ci t i zen of I ndones i a, w ho pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an a dver s e B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( B I A ) deci s i on dat ed A pr i l 28, 2005. T he B I A di s m i s s ed I s kander ’ s appea l of the deni al of hi s r eques t s for w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l a n d re lie f

u n d e r t h e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rt u re . W e re v iew th e B IA ’s f

in d in g s o f

f a c t u n d e r th e “ e x tre m e lyd e f e re n tial” s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s t a n d a r d . C h e n v . A s h c r o f t , 3 7 6 F . 3 d 2 1 5 , 2 2 3 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) . We w i l l notvaca t e the B I A ’ s fi ndi ngs unl es s “[a ] r eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o t he contr ary . ” Toure v. A t t ’ yG en. , 443 F. 3d 310, 316 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng Shar darv. A s hcr oft , 382 F. 3d 318, 323 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ) . A s w e w r i t e s ol el yfor t he p art i es, w e need no trel at e t he fa ct s.

A t hor ough r evi ew of the r ecor d l eads us t o concl ude thats ubs t ant i al e v id e n c e s u p p o rt e d th e B IA ’s f in d in g s th a t I s k a n d e r f

a ile d to s h o w p a s t p e rs e c u tio n , a cl earpr obabi l i t yof futur e per s ecut i on, ora cl earpr obabi l i t yof t or tur e upon hi s r emoval t o I ndones i a. T he thr ee a t t acks I s kanders uffe r ed fr om 1985 t o 1998, al ong w i t h var i ous i ncident s of ha ras sm ent, cou l d reasonab l ybe v i ew ed as i sol at ed inci den t s that do no tri se t o t he extr eme l evel of per s ecut i on ort or tur e. B oth t he i nfr equenc yof the i nci dent s and t he r el at i ve s afe t yof hi s fami l ys t i l l l i vi ng i n I ndones i a s uppor tthe fi ndi ng that3

p e rse c u tio n o r to rtu re is n o t a c lea r p ro b a b ili tyu p o n h is re tu rn . F u rth e r, th e S tate D ep artm en t R ep o rt s in the rec o rd d o n o t com p el th e c o n clus ion that Iska n d er w il l m o re lik e ly th a n n o t s u f

f e r p e rs e c u tio n o r t o rt u re if re m o v e d , b e c a u s e , in tera lia , theyi ndi cat e a decr eas e i n at t acks agai ns tethni c C hi nes e ( as di s t i ngui s hed fr om i nci dent s i nvol vi ng C hr i s t i ans orw om en) . See Li e v. A s hcr oft , 396 F. 3d 530, 536–38 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t ed fi ndi ngs thatharm s t o an ethni c C hi nes e ci t i zen of I ndones i a w er e nots o s ever e as t o cons t i tut e per s ecut i on, and thatpatt ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on di d notexi s t ) ; T arr aw al l yv. A s hcr oft , 338 F. 3d 180, 188 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( even w her e evi dence i ndi cat es t hatgovernm entcomm i t s “gr os s hum an r i ght s abus es ” and

“ m a n yc iv ili a n s a re k ill e d a rb itrar ily ,” th e re c o rd w a s “ in su f f icie n t to d e m o n stra te th a t it is m o re lik e ly th a n n o t th a t a p a rt ic u la r c iv ilia n . . . w ill b e to rt u re d ” ).

A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l denyI s kander ’ s pet i t i on.