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 Thir d C ir c uit 4-30-2008 

# W ib owo 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 . 07-1923

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_2008

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 2008 D e c i sion s b y 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 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 " W ibowo v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1306. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1306NOT 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- 1923 BU DI WI BO WO, Pet i t i oner

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F THE U NI TED STATES R es pondent

O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 96- 203- 861) I m m i gr at i on J udge: C har l es H oneym an Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 16, 2008 B efor e: A M B R O , FI SH E R , and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A pr i l 30, 2008)

OP I NI ON P E R C UR I AM B udi W i bow o, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of I ndones i a, 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 ( “B I A ”) , i n w hi ch the B I A aff i r m ed the deni alTh e I J a n d th e BI A a l s o d e t e r mi n e d th a tW i b o wo ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n f o ra s y l u m wa s t i me 1 barr ed. T he B IA deem ed W i bo w o’s r equ estfor r el i ef un der the C on ven t i on A gainst T o rt u re w a iv e d . W ib o w o d o e s n o t c h a lle n g e e ith e r f in d in g . 2 bythe I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) of W i bow o’ s appl i cat i on foras y l um and w i thhol di ng of re m o v a l. 1 W i bow o i s J avane s e and a M us l i m . H e bas es hi s cl ai m s forr el i ef on hi s fea rof r eturni ng t o I ndones i a. H e cl ai m s thatM us l i m r adi cal s w ho oppos ed a musi cal eventt hat he co- coor di nat ed w er e r es pons i bl e fora bea t i ng thatr es ul t ed w hen he a nd other s r efus ed to c a ll o f f th e e v e n t. H e b e liev e s th a t th e se sa m e M u slim ra d ica ls w e re late r re sp o n sib le f o r a n in c id e n t w h e re h is m o to rc y c le tire s w e re f latte n e d a n d f

o r th e ro b b e ryo f

h is c e llphone s t or e. W e h av e jurisdicti o n p u rsua n t t o 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a)(1). W e re v iew the IJ’s d e c is io n a n d th e B IA ’s a f f ir m a n c e u n d e r t h e d e f

e re n tia l “ s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e ” s ta n d a rd . D i a v. A s hcr oft , 353 F. 3d 228, 249 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( en banc ) . A fi ndi ng i s nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence onl yw her e “no r eas onabl e fa ctfi ndercoul d m ake thatfi ndi ng on the admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d. ” I d. Fi r s t , w e agr ee w i th t he B I A thatW i bow o fai l ed t o appea l fr om the I J ’ s deni al of h is re q u e st f

o r p ro tec tio n u n d e r th e C A T a n d , the re f o re , w e lac k ju risd ictio n to e n ter tain thatcl ai m . See A bdul r ahman v. A s hcr oft , 330 F. 3d 587, 594- 95 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( an al i en is re q u ire d to ra ise a n d e x h a u st h is re m e d ies a s to e a c h c laim o r g ro u n d o f re lief if h e is to pr es erve the r i ghtof j udi ci al r evi ew of thatcl ai m ) . W e al s o l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew3

the t i m el i nes s of hi s as y l um appl i cat i on w her e, as her e, a pet i t i onerhas notal l eged a co n sti tuti o n al claim o r raised a q u esti o n o f law . S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 5 8 (a)(3), 12 52 (a) (2) (D ); T arr aw al l yv. A shcroft , 33 8 F . 3d 18 0 (3d C i r. 20 03 ); see al so S u k w a n p u tr a v . G o n z a le s , 4 3 4 F .3 d 6 2 7 , 6 3 4 -3 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). W ib o w o ’s s o le r e m a in in g c laim is f o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. T o o b tain w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l, W ib o w o b o re th e b u rd e n o f e sta b lish in g th a t itw a s m o re lik e ly than notthathi s l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened i n I ndones i a on ac countof hi s r ace , re lig io n , n a tio n a lity, m e m b e rs h ip in a p a rt ic u la r s o c ia l g ro u p , o r p o litic a l o p in io n . 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 3 1 (b)(3 )(A ); R o m an ishyn v . A tt ’yG en . , 4 5 5 F . 3 d 1 7 5 , 1 7 8 n . 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); L i n v. I N S, 238 F. 3d 239, 244 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( hol di ng that“more l i kel ythan not ” i s t he s t andar d t o es t abl i s h w i thhol di ng of r emoval ) . W i bow o ar gues thathe pr ovi ded s uffi ci ent evi dence of pas tper s ecut i on, havi ng t es t i fi ed thathe w as beat en up i n 1997 bya gr oup of ra d ica l M u slim s w h o o p p o se d th e c o n c e rt h e c o o rd in a ted a n d w h o h a d u n su c c e ss f u lly tr i ed t o r ecrui thi m . W i bow o al s o poi nt s outi n hi s br i ef thatthe 2002 I nt ernat i onal R el i gi ous Fr eedom R eportdocument s i nt err el i gi ous vi ol ence thatoccurr ed dur i ng 2002, s o m e t i m e s w i th o f

f i c i a l c o m p l i c i ty. Subst ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the I J ’ s deni al of W i bow o’ s r eques tforw i thhol di ng of r emoval . See; 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ( B ) ; I N S v. E l i as - Z aca r i as , 502 U . S. 478, 481 ( 1992) . T he thr ee i nci dent s thatW i bow o t es t i fi ed t o havi ng s uffe r ed— one i ns t ance of phy s i cal vi ol ence byuni dent i fi ed per s ons i n 1997 atthe conc ertevent , the punctur i ng of4

h is m o torcy cle ti re b yan u n iden ti fied p erso n , an d the ro b b eryo f h is cell p h o n e sto re— are nots er i ous enough t o cons t i tut e per s ecut i on underthe s t atut e. See, e. g. , Fat i n v. I N S, 12 F. 3d 1233, 1240 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( per s ecut i on i s an “e xtr eme concept ” that“does not encompas s al l tr eatm entthatours oci etyr egar ds as unfai r , unj us t , oreven unl aw ful or u n co n sti tuti o n al”). W i bow o di d notdemonstr at e ei ther“a r eal thr eatt o l i fe orfr eedom” orthatthe In d o n e sia n g o v e rn m e n t is “ u n a b le o r u n w ill in g to c o n tro l” th e in d iv id u a ls w h o a lleg e d ly per s ecut ed hi m . See A bdi l l e v. A s hcr oft , 242 F. 3d 477, 494- 95 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( fi ndi ng th a t ra n d o m stre e t v io len c e a n d c rim in a l ac tiv ityd o e s n o t co n stitu te p e rse c u tio n ). F irst, the bea t i ng W i bow o exper i ence d r es ul t ed i n bl ack a nd bl ue brui s es , butW i bow o di d not t es t i fythathe s oughtm edi cal tr eatm entaft erhe w as beat en, northathe has s uffe r ed l ongt erm s er i ous harm . See Li e v. A s hcr oft , 396 F. 3d 530, 536 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( not i ng the m in o r i n ju ry su f f e re d b yth e p e titio n e r w a s n o t s o s e v e re a s to c o n s titu te p e rs e c u tio n ). S e c o n d , ev e n if

W ib o w o c o u ld sh o w th a t th e h a rm h e e x p e rie n c e d w a s s e v e re e n o u g h to r i s e t o the l evel of per s ecut i on, W i bow o has notpr ovi ded s uffi ci entevi dence t o compel ou r concl usi on that the all eged even t s he suffered w ere i nfli ct ed b ythe M usl i m radi cal s’ des i r e t o penal i ze hi m bas ed on hi s r el i gi ous bel i efs . See A bdi l l e, 242 F. 3d at495 (g e n e ra liz e d e v id e n c e o f h o s tilit yto w a rd a g ro u p is in s u f f ic ie n t to c o n s titu te p e rs e c u tio n ). U n d e r o u r d e f

e re n tia l r e v ie w s ta n d a rd , th e B IA ’s c o n c lu s io n m u s t b e u p h e ld . Fi nal l y , ther e i s no r ecor d evi dence thatthe al l eged pe r s ecut i on w as perpetr at ed by5

th e In d o n e s ia n g o v e rn m e n t, o r b yf o rc e s th e g o v e rn m e n t is u n w illin g o r u n a b le to c o n tr o l. See, e. g. , L i e, 396 F. 3d at536 ( not i ng thattw o i s ol at ed cr i m i nal act s , perpetuat ed by unknow n as s ai l ant s , w hi ch r es ul t ed onl yi n the theftof s om e per s onal pr opertyand a m i nori nj ury , w er e nots uffi ci ent l ys ever e t o be cons i der ed per s ecut i on unl es s comm i t t ed b ythe g o v ern m en t or fo rce s the g o v ern m en t i s eith er “ u n ab le or u n w il li n g ” to c o n tr o l) ; s ee a l s o G ao v. A s hcr oft , 299 F. 3d 266, 272 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . W i bow o r el i es on a gene r al s t at ementi n t he 2002 R eporton I nt ernat i onal R el i gi ous Fr eedom, w hi ch s t at es thatthe I ndones i an governm entt ol er at es i nt err el i gi ous vi ol ence . H ow ever , W i bow o does not cl ai m thatther e i s a patt ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on agai ns tper s ons w i th hi s part i cul ar p o lit ica l o r re lig io u s b e lief s b yM u slim ra d ica ls o r th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t sp e c if ica lly to le ra te s th e g ro u p th a t b e a t h im u p in 1 9 9 6 . F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.