2009 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 2-20-2009 

# Lin a wat i 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 . 07-2333

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 a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

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 l l a nova 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 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " L in a wat i v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1848. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1848NOT 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. 07- 2333 F N U L IN A W A T I, 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 O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of a Fi nal O r derfr om th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls U . S. D epart m entof J us t i ce E xecut i ve O ffi ce f

orI m m i gr at i on R evi ew ( B I A N o. A 79- 307- 097) Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember9, 2008 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C h ie f

J u d g e , M c K E E a n d S M IT H , C i r cui tJudges . ( O pi ni on fi l ed: February20, 2009)

OPI NI ON OF TH E CO UR TLi n aw atid o e s n o ts e e k r e v i e wo f

th eB IA = s d e c isi on

a ff ir min gthedenial of

her c laim 1 un der t heConventi on

Ag a ins t T or

ture(“ CA T” ). We t

here fo rene e d n ot discus s th at c laim a s it is waived. See Ab du l-

Ak ba r v . M c Ke lv ie , 239 F.3d 307, 316 n.2 ( 3d Cir. 2001). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 2 2 M c K E E , C i r cui tJudge . Fnu L i naw at i pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a f i nal or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s aff

i r m i ng t he dec i s i on of an I m m i gr at i on J udge thatdeni ed herappl i cat i on for a sy lu m a n d w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l. Fort he r eas ons t hatfol l ow , w e w i l l denyt he

1 pet i t i on. 2 I. Si nce w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yfort he part i es w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t hi s cas e, w e nee d notr eci t e the fa ctual orpr ocedur al backgr ound exce pti ns ofaras m aybe hel pful t o our b ri e f d is c u s s io n . S ince the B IA ad o p ted th e IJ = s rea so n ing w h il e d iscu ssing the IJ = s l egal c o n c lu s io n s , w e re v ie w th e d e c is io n s o f b o th th e IJ a n d th e B IA . X ie v . A sh c ro

ft , 359 F . 3 d 2 3 9 , 2 4 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T h e B IA = s “fi ndi ngs of fa ctar e conc l us i ve unl es s any re a s o n a b le a d

ju d ic a to r w o u ld b e c o m p e lle d to c o n c lu d e to th e c o n tr a ry.” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )( 4 )( B ). See a l

so I N S v. E l i as - Zacar i as , 5 0 2 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 (1 9 9 2 ). T h e B IA c o n c lu d e d th a t L in a w a ti = s d o c u m e n tatio n a n d a tten d a n t tes tim o n y , w h ile cre d ible, estab li sh ed n eith er p ast p erse cu ti o n , n o r a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture persecut i on . L i naw at i rel i ed u po n thr ee i ncident s t o sup po rther pet i t i on . T he fir stC t he3

M ay1998 i nci dentC occurr ed dur i ng a r i oti n J akart a. T he s econd i nci denti nvol ved the bur ni ng of a c hur ch i n hernei ghbor hood i n N ovember1999. T he thi r d i nvol ved a r i ot th a t s h e w itn e s s e d in G lo d o k , a p re d o m in a n tly C h in e s e n e ig h b o rh o o d in J a k a rt a . T he B I A r el i ed upon ourdeci s i on i n Fa t i n v . I NS , 1 2 F .3 d 1 2 3 3 (3 d C ir.1 9 9 3 ), in con cl ud i ng t hat the inci den t s L i naw at i descri bed did not es t abli sh t hat s he w as a “r efuge e. ” I n Fa tin , w e e x p la in e d th a t p e rs e c u tio n e n c o m p a s s e s “ e x tr e m e c o n d u c t,” i ncl udi ng “thr eat s t o l i fe, confi nement , t or tur e, and ec onom i c r es t r i ct i ons s o s ever e that t heycons t i tut e a thr eatt o l i fe orfr eedom. ” Id . at 1 2 4 0 . L in a w a ti = s cont i nued uneve nt ful p re se n c e in In d o n e sia f o r tw o y e a rs f

o llo w in g th e 1 9 9 8 rio t in Ja k a rta , the re lativ e ly iso late d n a tu re o f

th e e v e n ts s h e re lies u p o n , an d h e r f a m ily = s unevent ful cont i nued pr es ence i n I ndones i a, al l underm i ne hereff or tt o cl ai m t hatt hes e thr ee i nci dent s amount to p a s t p e rs e c u tio n o r s u p p o rt a w e ll- f o u n d e d f e a r o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n . See Li e v. A sh c ro ft , 3 9 6 F .3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (“ [ W ]h e n f a m ilym e m b e rs r e m a in in pet i t i oner ' s nat i ve countr yw i t houtm eet i ng harm , and ther e i s no i ndi vi dual i zed s how i ng t h a tp e t i t i o n e rw o u l d b e s i n g l e d o u tf o rp e r s e c u t i o n , t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f a p e t i t i o n e r 's w el l - founded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on i s di m i ni s hed. ”) . W e ther efor e agr ee thats he has n o t e s ta b lis h e d p a s t p e rs e c u tio n o r a w e ll- f o u n d e d f e a r o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n . II. L inaw ati also arg u es th at he r du e p roc ess righ ts w ere v iolated b ec au se th e B IA fai l ed t o adequa t el ycons i dereac h of herar gum ent s . A l t hough t her e i s no cons t i tut i onalL ina wati also c ite s Sukwanputra v. Gonzales , 434 F.3d 627 ( 3d Cir. 2006). Howe ver, 3 our dec ision to remand therein no way sug g ests that L inawati does not have to establish the “systemic, perva sive, or org anized[] ” nature of a ny suffering . See Lie , 396 F.3d at 537 (citing Ngu rev . A sh c ro

ft , 367 F.3d 975, 991 ( 8th Cir. 2004)). Rather, in Su k wan pu tra , we remande d with the express purpose of requiringthe IJto consider documents that he re fused to takenotice of duringtheini tial he aringbe c a us eof a uth e nti c atio n c on c e rn s th at c ould h avebe e n p ro c e durally reme died. 4 ri g h t to a s y lu m , a lie n s f a c in g re m o v a l a re e n title d to d u e p ro c e s s . Sew ak v. I . N . S. , 900 F. 2d 667, 671 ( 3d C i r . 1990) . T he D ue Pr oces s C l aus e ens ur es t hati m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ngs i ncl ude: ( 1) fac t fi ndi ng bas ed on a r ecor d pr oduced be for e the dec i s i onm aker a n d d i s c l o s e d t o t h e p e t i t i o n e r ; ( 2 ) a n o p p o r tu n i t yt o ma k e a r g u me n t s o n h i s o rh e ro wn behal f; and ( 3) t he r i ghtt o an i ndi vi dual i zed de t erm i nat i on of the mer i t s of hi s orher c la im . A b d u la i v. A sh c ro ft , 239 F. 3d 542, 549 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . H ow ever , L i naw at i does notcont end thats he w as deni ed the oppor tuni t yt o i nt r oduce e vi dence t o es t abl i s h her cl ai m befor e the B I A ort he I J . T hus , herar gum entonl yi m pl i cat es herr i ghtt o an “i ndi vi dual i zed de t erm i nat i on. ” I d. T he B I A ci t ed Li e, supra , in e x p lain in g w h yL in a w a ti = s affi dav i t s do n ot es t abli sh a patt ern orpr act i ce of

per s ecut i ng C hi nes e C hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a. 3 9 6 F .3 d a t 5 3 0 . 3 T h e B IA a d d re ss e d L in a w a ti = s te stim o n ya b o u t th e a ttem p ted ra p e d u rin g th e 1 9 9 8 rio t, butfound thatt he r ecor d as a w hol e di d notes t abl i s h per s ecut i on, even w hen combi ned w ith th e e v id e n c e o f

tw o lo c a l u p ri s in g s . F in a lly , alth o u g h L in a w a ti d isa g re e s, th e B o a rd c lea rlyc o n sid e re d o u r d e c isio n in L ie in re je c tin g h e r a tte m p t to p ro v e a f e a r o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n .5 III . F o r th e f o reg o ing rea so n s, w e f

ind that su b stan ti al ev iden ce su p p o rt s the B IA ’s det erm i nat i on t hatL i naw at i di d notm eetherbur den of de m ons t r at i ng el i gi bi l i t yfor a s y lu m a n d w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l. A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .