1 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. 09- 1945

___________ B O E N G L IN T A N ; H E N N Y E L L Y S A N A W A T I, P eti ti o n ers

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of a D eci s i on of the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN os . A 079- 734- 399 & A 096- 205- 610) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e R . K . M al l oy

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

M ar ch 24, 2010 B efor e: C hi ef J udge SC I R I C A , SM I T H and W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ar ch 31, 2010)

OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

Pet i t i oner s B oeng Li T an and H ennyE l l ySanaw at i pet i t i on 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 ”) r ender ed on M ar ch 4, 2009. For th e f o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l d i s mi s s i n p a r ta n d d e n yi n p a r tth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.2 I . B ackgr ound P eti ti o n ers, a m arried c o u p le w ith tw o U n it ed S tat es c it izen ch il d ren , are n ati v es a n d cit izen s o f In d o n esia. T h eyarrived in the U n it ed S tat es in 1 9 9 8 an d w ere pl ace d i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs i n 2003. T heyconce ded r emovabi l i tyand appl i ed for asy lum , w ith h o lding o f re m o v al, an d p rotec ti o n u n d er the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re ( “C A T ”) . Pet i t i oner s cl ai m theys uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on and fe arfutur e per s ecut i on and t orture i n Indo nesi a beca use t heyare ethn i c C hinese C hri st i ans.

A ft era hea r i ng, the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) i s s ued an or al deci s i on on M ar ch 20, 2008. T he I J det erm i ned thatPet i t i oner s ar e s t atut or i l yi nel i gi bl e foras y l um beca us e theyfi l ed thei rappl i cat i ons m or e than one y earaft erthe s t atut orydeadl i ne and d o n o t sat isfyan yex ce p ti o n to ex cu se th e u n ti m eli n ess. T h e IJ c o n clud ed that P eti ti o n ers f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h e l i g i b i l i tyf o rwi th h o l d i n g o f

r e mo v a l o rp r o t e c t i o n u n d e rth e CA T beca us e theydi d nott es t i fyt o pas tharm s uffi ci entt o r i s e t o the l evel of per s ecut i on and th e yf a iled to e sta b lish a c lea r p ro b a b ili tyo f f u tu re p e rse c u tio n o r th a t an y o n e w o u ld t or tur e them i f theyw er e t o r eturn t o I ndones i a.

Pet i t i oner s appea l ed. T heydi d notcont es tthe I J ’ s concl us i on conce rni ng thei rs t atut oryi nel i gi bi l i tyforas y l um orthe dec i s i on t o denyC A T r el i ef. T heycl ai m ed on l ythat theyhad est abli shed a p at t ern or pract i ce of persecut i on of ethnic C hinese C hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a. O n M ar ch 4, 2009, the B I A aff i r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on and d is m is s e d th e a p p e a l.3 T h is tim e ly co u n s e le d p e titio n f o r r e v ie w f

o llo w e d . II. A n a ly sis W e gene r al l yr evi ew onl yfi nal or der s of the B I A . See Li v. A t t ’ yG en. , 400 F. 3d 157, 162 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . H ow ever , i n cas es w her e “the B I A both adopt s the fi ndi ngs o f th e IJ a n d d isc u ss e s s o m e o f th e b a se s f

o r th e IJ's d e c isio n , [th is C o u rt h a s] a u th o rityto r evi ew the dec i s i ons of both the I J and the B I A . ” C hen v. A s hcr oft , 376 F. 3d 215, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . W e r evi ew the r ej ect i on of Pet i t i oner s ’ cl ai m s underthe def er ent i al s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s ta n d a rd . S e e T o u re v . A tt’ yG e n ., 4 4 3 F .3 d 3 1 0 , 3 1 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill n o t d istu rb th e d e c isio n “ u n les s a n yre a so n a b le a d ju d ica to r w o u ld b e c o m p ell ed to co n clud e to th e c o n tr ary . ” Y u v . A tt ’yG en . , 5 1 3 F . 3 d 3 4 6 , 3 4 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ).

T h e B IA a f

f irm e d th e IJ’ s c o n c lu sio n th a t P e tit io n e rs w e re n o t en tit led to w i thhol di ng of r emoval beca us e theyfai l ed t o es t abl i s h a “pa t t ern orpr act i ce of p e rs e c u tio n ” o f

e th n ic C h in e s e C h ri s tia n s in In d o n e s ia . S e e 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 6 (b )( 2 ). A m o n g o ther thin g s, in o rde r t o m ee t th eir bu rde n o f p roo f f o r th is cl aim , P eti ti o n ers w ere requi red t o p res ent obj ect i ve ev i den ce dem on strat i ng that per secut i on of ethnic C hinese C hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a i s “s y s t emi c, pervas i ve, oror gani zed. ” See Li e v. A s hcr oft , 396 F .3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ).

T o d a te, o u r c a se law h a s n o t co n c lu siv e lya d d re ss e d w h e th e r o r n o t a patt ern orpr act i ce of

per s ecut i on of ethni c C hi nes e C hr i s t i ans exi s t s i n I ndones i a. SeeForexampl e, the 2003 and 2004 St at e D epart m entR eport s “gene r al l yemphasi ze the 1 ste p s ta k e n b yth e In d o n e sia n g o v e rn m e n t to p ro m o te r e lig io u s, ra c ial, a n d e th n ic t ol er ance and t o r educe i nt err el i gi ous vi ol ence . . . [and] i ndi cat e thatpr i vat e part i es , not governm entoffi ci al s , ar e the pr edomi nantcaus e of ha r as s m entand vi ol ence . ” W ong, 539 F .3 d a t 2 3 3 -3 4 . 4 Sukw anputr a v. G onzal es , 434 F. 3d 627, 637 n. 10 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . H ow ever , w e have cons i der ed St at e D epart m entR eport s fr om 1999, 2003, and 2004, and have concl uded th a t th e s e re p o rt s d o n o t d e m o n s tr a te p e rs e c u tio n th a t c o n s titu te s a p a tte rn o r p ra c tic e . S e e Wo n g v . A tt ’ yG e n . , 5 3 9 F . 3 d 2 2 5 , 2 3 3 - 3 4 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) ; L i e , 3 9 6 F . 3 d a t5 3 7 . We 1 have a l s o not ed thatr ece ntSt at e D epart m entr eport s t end t o r efl ecti m pr ovi ng tr eatm ent o f e th n ic C h in e s e C h ri s tia n s in In d o n e s ia . S e e W o n g , 5 3 9 F .3 d a t 2 3 4 .

In re a c h in g a d e c isio n in th is c a se , the IJ r e lied u p o n th e m o st re c e n t S tate D epart m entR eport s thatappea ri n the r ecor d, w hi ch ar e fr om 2006 and 2007. ( See A . R . 312- 22, 394- 405, 419- 46. ) I n es s ence , the I J concl uded thatthe r eport s r efl ectthat the Indo nesi an g ov ernm ent has m ade ef fort s t o im prove the si tuati on s for ethn i c C hinese and C hr i s t i an i ndi vi dual s . Fori ns t ance , s he not ed thatI ndones i a has abol i s hed d iscri m inato rylaw s an d d o es n o t sup p o rtthe re li g iou s ten sion s in the co u n try . T h e B IA uphel d the I J ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs bas ed upon thes e r eport s , concl udi ng thattheydi d not est abli sh t he n ecessary“sy st em i c, pervasi ve, or organized” persecut i on of ethnic C hinese C h ri s tia n s . S e e L ie , 3 9 6 F .3 d a t 5 3 7 .

B as ed upon ourcl os e r evi ew of the r ecor d, w e conc l ude thats ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the dec i s i on thatPet i t i oner s fai l ed t o es t abl i s h a patt ern orpr act i ce ofForexampl e, the 2007 St at e D epart m entR eporton I nt ernat i onal R el i gi ous Fr eedom 2 s t at es that“the G overnm entgener al l yr es pect ed” r el i gi ous fr eedom, that“[t ] her e w as no change i n t he s t atus of r es pectforr el i gi ous fr eedom bythe G overnm entdur i ng the r eport i ng per i od, ” and that“mostof the popul at i on enj oy ed a hi gh degr ee of r el i gi ous f re e d o m .” (A .R . 3 9 4 .) P eti ti o n ers a tt em p t t o relyu p o n M u fied v . M u k ase y , 5 0 8 F . 3 d 8 8 , 9 1 -92 (2d C ir . 3 2007) , a dec i s i on bythe C our tof A ppeal s forthe Second Ci r cui t . I n M ufi ed, the a p p lica n t ar g u e d th a t th e re w a s a p a ttern o r p ra c tice o f p e rse c u tio n o f

C h ristia n s in I ndones i a, butthe I J and B I A fai l ed t o cons i derthe cl ai m . A ccor di ngl y , the Second C i r cui tr emanded the mat t ers o t he B I A coul d cons i deri n the fi r s ti ns t ance w hetherthe appl i canthad pr offe r ed evi dence thates t abl i s hed “s y s t emi c, pervas i ve, oror gani zed” p erse cu ti o n o f C h ri sti an s in In d o n esia. Id. at9 3 . H ere , in co n tr ast, the IJ a n d B IA cons i der ed and r ej ect ed Pet i t i oner s ’ patt ern orpr act i ce c l ai m . A ccor di ngl y , M ufi ed i s not relev an t t o o u r co n side rati o n o f th is m att er. 5 p e r s e c u t i o n o f

e th n i c Ch i n e s e Ch r i s t i a n s i n I n d o n e s i a . S i mi l a r l yt o th e r e p o r t s we cons i der ed i n L i e and W ong, Pet i t i oner s ’ pr offe r ed 2006 and 2007 St at e D epart m ent re p o rts c o n tain e v id e n c e u n d e rm in in g th e ir p a ttern o r p ra c tice c laim . T h e e v id e n c e in 2 the r ecor d does notcompel the conc l us i on thata patt ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on of ethni c C hi nes e C hr i s t i ans exi s t s i n I ndones i a. See I N S v. E l i as - Z aca r i as , 502 U . S. 478, 4 8 1 n .1 (1 9 9 2 ); s e e a ls o W o n g , 5 3 9 F .3 d a t 2 3 3 -3 4 ; L ie , 3 9 6 F .3 d a t 5 3 7 .

A l though Pet i t i oner s di s put e thi s r es ul t , theyoffe rnothi ng m or e than c o n c lu s o ry st a te m e n ts to th e e f f e c t th a t th e yp re s e n te d “ o v e rw h e lm in g e v id e n c e o f . . . a patt ern orpr act i ce of

per s ecut i on agai ns tethni c C hi nes e and Chri s t i ans i n I ndones i a. . . . ” T heypoi ntt o nothi ng i n t he r ecor d t o underm i ne the s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t i ng t he I J ’ s and B I A ’ s concl us i ons . A ccor di ngl y , w e mustdenythei rw i thhol di ng of r emoval c l a i m. 36 T hr oughoutthei rbr i ef on a ppeal , Pet i t i oner s al s o cont end theyar e ent i t l ed t o as y l um and C A T r el i ef. W e mustdi s m i s s thes e cl ai m s . W e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the I J ’ s concl us i on thatPet i t i oner s appl i ed foras y l um out s i de of the s t atut orydeadl i ne and fa i l ed t o pr es entci r cumst ance s t o t ol l the dea dl i ne. See Tar r aw al l yv. A s hcr oft , 338 F . 3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). In a d d it ion , w h en theyap p ea led to the B IA , P eti ti o n ers fai l ed t o di s put e the I J ’ s deci s i on t o denyC A T r el i ef. A ccor di ngl y , thatcl ai m r emai ns u n e x h a u s t e d . S e e Ab d u l r a h ma n v . As h c r o f t , 3 3 0 F . 3 d 5 8 7 , 5 9 4 - 9 5 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) ; I NA § 2 4 2 (d )( 1 ) [ 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (d )( 1 )] . I I I . C oncl us i on

Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l di s m i s s i n partand denyi n partthe p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.