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 Third C ir c uit 9-29-2008 

# M a s sie v . Atty Ge n U SA P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-2797

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re 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 Third C irc 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 by 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 more 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 " M as sie v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 467. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008/467B L D - 269

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. 08- 2797

___________ AR I NO M ASSI E, 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 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 o. A 79- 708- 135) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e A l bert o J . R i efkohl

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on Pur s uantt o T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

A ugus t7, 2008 B efor e: M C K E E , R E N D E L L and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed Sept ember29, 2008 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i onerA r i no M as s i e s eeks r evi ew of a f i nal deci s i on bythe B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) deny i ng a mot i on t o r eopen hi s r emoval pr ocee di ngs . ForT h e IJ h e ld th a t M a ss ie’ s a sy lu m a p p lica tio n w a s u n tim e lyb e c a u se h e d id n o t f ile 1 w i thi n one y earof hi s arr i val and di d notpr es entextr aor di naryci r cumst ance s excus i ng the del ay . A . R . 089- 90, 95. T he I J deni ed w i thhol di ng of r emoval and pr ot ect i on under th e C A T b e c a u se M a ss ie f a iled to p re se n t su f

f icie n t ev id e n c e d e m o n stra tin g h e w o u ld m or e l i kel ythan nots uffe rper s ecut i on ort or tur e i f r eturned t o I ndones i a. A . R . 095- 97. the r eas ons thatfol l ow , w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on forr evi ew and s um m ar i l yaff i r m the B I A ’ s deci s i on. I . B ackgr ound Pet i t i onerA r i no M as s i e i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of I ndones i a. H e ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n J ul y2001 on a bus i nes s vi s i t or ’ s vi s a, r emai ned i l l egal l yaft erthe vi s a expi r ed, and w as s erved w i th a not i ce t o appea ri n A pr i l 2003. H e conc eded r emovabi l i tyand app l i ed fo r as y l um , w i thh oldi ng of rem ov al , and prot ect i on un der the C on ven t i on A gainst T orture ( “C A T ”), cl ai m i ng persecut i on i n Indo nesi a beca use he is an ethni c C hinese C h ri sti an . In a Ju ly2 0 0 6 h ea ri n g , the Im m igrati o n Ju d g e (“ IJ”) d en ied M assie’s app l i cat i on s. 1 M as s i e then appe al ed the I J ’ s deci s i on t o the B I A . I n s uppor t , M as s i e s ubm i t t ed tw o 2 0 0 6 re p o rts c o n c e rn in g c o u n tryc o n d iti o n s in In d o n e sia th a t h e h a d n o t p re v io u sly p rese n ted to the IJ. M assie a rgu ed that the d o cu m en ts sho w ed ch an g ed co u n try condi t i ons and a pa t t ern orpr act i ce of vi ol ence agai ns tC hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a. For exampl e, M as s i e ci t ed a pa s s age s t at i ng that“[t ] he G overnm ent[of I ndones i a] att i m es h as to lerated the a b u se o f f ree d o m o f re li g ion . . . . ” A . R . 0 2 3 . T h e B IA tr ea ted M assie’s n ew ev iden ce as a m o ti o n to rem an d . In a d ec isi o n d ated Jan u ary3 1 , 2 0 0 8 , the B IA aff i r m ed the I J ’ s deni al of M as s i e’ s appl i cat i ons . I tal s o deni ed the mot i on t o r emandbeca us e the evi dence di d nots how change d ci r cumst ance s ora patt ern orpr act i ce of

p erse cu ti o n o f e thn ic C h ines e C h ri sti an s in In d o n esia. M assie d id n o t petit ion this C o u rt forr evi ew of the B I A ’ s deci s i on. O n M ar ch 3, 2008, M as s i e moved t he B I A t o r eopen hi s cas e bas ed on a c l ai m that In d o n e sia w a s e x p e rie n c in g re n e w e d v io len c e a g a in st C h ristia n s. In su p p o rt, M a ss ie pr offe r ed a 2006 D epart m entof St at e I nt ernat i onal R el i gi ous Fr eedom R eport , w hi ch s t at ed that“the governm ent[of I ndones i a] t ol er at ed the abus e of r el i gi ous fr eedom by p ri v ate g rou p s o r fa il ed to p u n ish p erp etrators. ” S ee A . R . 0 0 8 . A cc o rdin g to M assie’s m ot i on, the R eportw as r el eas ed i n D ece m ber2006, aft erM as s i e s ubm i t t ed hi s appea l b ri e f a n d m o tio n f

o r r e m a n d to th e B IA . Id . In a M a y2 3 , 2 0 0 8 , d e c isio n , the B IA f o u n d th a t M a ss ie’ s e v id e n c e w a s “ sim ilar to orof the s ame char act er ” as the evi dence pr evi ous l ypr es ent ed t o the B I A i n s uppor tof h is m o tio n to re m a n d . T h e B IA h e ld th a t th is e v id e n c e d id n o t w a rra n t re o p e n in g a n d d id n o t d e m o n stra te a p a ttern o r p ra c tice o f p e rse c u tio n o f

e th n ic C h in e se C h ristia n s in In d o n e s ia . T h e B IA th e re f o re d e n ie d M a s s ie ’s m o tio n to re o p e n . M as s i e, thr ough couns el , now pet i t i ons thi s C our tforr evi ew of the B I A ’ s M ay23, 2 0 0 8 , d e c is io n d e n y in g h is m o tio n to re o p e n . H e h a s a ls o m o v e d f o r a s ta yo f

re m o v a l. T he G overnm entoppos es the s t ayand has m oved fors um m aryact i on. II. A n a ly sis O nl ythe B I A ’ s deci s i on deny i ng M as s i e’ s m ot i on t o r eopen i s pr oper l ybefor e the C o u rtat th is t im e. S ee S ton e v . IN S , 5 1 4 U . S . 3 8 6 , 4 0 5 (19 9 5 ). W e re v iew the B IA ’sA ccor di ng t o the r eportpr evi ous l ys ubm i t t ed i n s uppor tof r emand, “[t ] he 2 G overnm ents om et i m es t ol er at ed di s cr i m i nat i on agai ns tand the abus e of r el i gi ous gr oups b yp riv a te a c to rs, a n d o f ten f a iled to p u n ish p e rp e tra to rs.” A .R . 0 5 5 . T h is is n e a rly i dent i cal t o the “ne w devel opm ent s ” M as s i e ci t es i n hi s m ot i on t o r eopen: “the go vernm ent t oler at ed the abu se of rel i gious freedom bypri vate gr ou ps or fai l ed to pun i sh perpetr at or s . ” A . R . 008. deni al of a mot i on t o r eopen f orabus e of di s cr et i on. G uo v. A s hcr oft , 386 F. 3d 556, 562 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ; L u v. A s hcr oft , 259 F. 3d 127, 131 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . T he B I A ’ s deci s i on w i l l be uphel d unl es s i tw as “arbi tr ary , i rr at i onal , orcontr aryt o l aw . ” Ti pu v. I N S, 20 F. 3d 580, 582 ( 3d C i r . 1994) . W e w i l l t ake s um m aryact i on t o di s pos e of a cas e w hen “no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on i s pr es ent ed. ” 3d C i r . L A R 27. 4. T h e B IA co rrectl yh eld th at reo p en ing w as n o t w arran ted b ec au se M assie’s evi dence w as “s i m i l art o” the evi dence pr evi ous l ypr es ent ed i n s uppor tof hi s m ot i on for r e ma n d a n d th e r e f

o r e wa s n o ts u f

f i c i e n t l yn e w t o wa rr a n tr e o p e n i n g . S e e I NA § 240( c) ( 7) ( B ) [8 U . S. C . § 1229a( c) ( 7) ( B ) ] ( r equi r i ng pr oof of “ new fac t s ” for re o p e n in g ). In d e e d , the 2 0 0 6 In ter n a tio n a l R e lig io u s F re e d o m R e p o rt th a t M a ss ie pr evi ous l ys ubm i t t ed t o the B I A i n s uppor tof hi s m ot i on forr emand i ncl udes l anguage n e a rlyid e n tica l to th a t w h ich M a ss ie c o n ten d s is th e “ n e w e v id e n c e ” su p p o rtin g h is m ot i on t o r eopen. M or eover , M as s i e’ s cl ai m thatthe evi dence i n s uppor tof hi s m ot i on 2 t o r eopen w as notpr evi ous l yavai l abl e t o hi m i s dubi ous . T he r eporti n ques t i on w as i s s ued i n D ece m ber2006. Y etM as s i e fi l ed hi s appea l br i ef w i th the B I A on M ay11, 2007, and i ti ncl uded as evi dence a 2006 St at e D epart m entR eporti s s ued on M ar ch 6, 2007. See A . R . 018, 026. T hus , i tappea r s thatthe i nform at i on M as s i e pr es ent s w asa v a ilab le to h im w h e n h e las t ap p e a re d b e f o re th e B IA . T h u s, th e B IA d id n o t ab u se its d i s c r e t i o n i n c o n c l u d i n g th a tth i s d o e s n o twa rr a n tr e o p e n i n g . S e e 8 C. F . R. § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (c)(3)(ii ). I I I . C oncl us i on B eca us e thi s appea l does notr ai s e a s ubs t ant i al ques t i on, w e w i l l gr antthe G o v ern m en t’ s m o ti o n fo r sum m aryac ti o n an d d en ythe p eti ti o n fo r rev iew . S ee T h ir d C irc u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 . W e w ill d e n yM a ss ie’ s m o tio n f o r sta yo f

re m o v a l.