2005 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 7-20-2005 

# Liong v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 04-3145

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2005 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 no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" L ion g v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 805. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/805NOT 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. 04- 3145
L I NDAWAT I S UYONO L I ONG; F E NNY S UT ANO,

P eti ti o n ers
v. * A L B E R T O R
. G O N Z A L E S , A t t orneyG eneral of the U nit ed S t at es, R es pondent * Su bs t i tut e d p ur s ua ntt o Rul e 43 ( c ) , F. R. A
. P.
O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew fr om t he 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 ( B I A N o. A 97- 331- 442/ 443) Subm i t t ed pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL
. A
. R
. 34. 1( a)

on J ul y15, 2005
B e f o re : A L IT O , V A N A N T W E R P E N , a n d A L D IS E R T ,

C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed J ul y20, 2005)

_____ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT
V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udge.O n M ar ch 1, 2003, t he I N S ceas ed t o exi s tas an age ncyw i t hi n t he D epart m entof 1 J u s tic e a n d th e IN S ’s f

u n c tio n s w e re tr a n s f

e rr e d to th e D e p a rt m e n t o f H o m e la n d S e c u ri ty. See H om el and Secur i t yA ctof 2002, Pub. L
. N o. 107- 296 §§ 441 & 471, 116 St at . 2135. 2 P e tit io n e rs L in d a w a ti L io n g a n d F e n n y S u tan to , m o th e r a n d d a u g h ter , are b o th e th n ic C hi nes e nat i ves and ci t i zens of I ndones i a. T heys eek r evi ew of a fi nal or derof t he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) dat ed J une 30, 2004, s um m ar i l yaff i r m i ng t he dec i s i on of t he I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) deny i ng t hem asy l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde rt he C o n v e n tio n A g a in st T o rtu re (“ C A T ” ). F o r th e re a so n s th a t f o llo w , w e w ill d e n yth e ir pet i t i on. I. Pet i t i oner s ent er ed t he U ni t ed St at es on J ul y 5, 2000, w i t h author i zat i on t o r emai n no l at ert han J anuary4, 2001. T he form erI m m i g rati o n and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce ( “I N S”) 1 p lac e d P e tit io n e rs in re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s o n A u g u st 1 5 , 2 0 0 1 , w h e n it se rv e d N o tice s to A ppearchar gi ng t hem w i t h r emovabi l i t y fo r re m aini ng i n t he U ni t ed St at es l ongert han per m i t t ed i n vi ol at i on of § 237( a) ( 1) ( B ) of t he I N A , 8 U
. S. C
. § 1227(a)(1)(B )
. Pet i t i oner Li o n g s u b mi t t e d , o n b e h a l f o f he r s e l f a n d h e rd a u g h t e r , a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o ra s y l u m,
w i t hh oldi ng of rem ov al , and rel i ef un der t he C A T
. A tan ini t i al heari ng befo re the IJ, Pet i t i oner s admi t t ed t he fa ctual al l egat i ons s t at ed i n t he N ot i ces t o A p p ear , conce ded
r e mo v a b i l i t y , a n d i n d i c a t e d t h e i rd e s i r e t o s e e k a s y l u m, wi t h h o l d i n g o f r e mo v a l , a n d CA T prot ect i on . A tthe co nclusi on of P et i t i on ers ’ m eri t s hearing , the IJ denied P et i t i on ers ’ ap p li ca ti o n s, fin d ing they h ad n o t sustaine d the ir b u rd e n o f p roo f, an d g ran ted v o lun tary3

depar tur e. T he B I A aff i r m ed t he I J ’ s deci s i on p e rc u r ia m . T hi s pet i t i on fol l ow ed.

II. Pet i t i oner s ’ appl i cat i ons foras y l um t o obt ai n r el i ef fr om t he al l eged per s ecut i on t hey fac ed i n t hei rnat i ve I ndones i a ar e gr ounded i n t hei rcl ai m ed ethni c C hi nes e mi nor i t ys t atus
as w ell as t h eir claim ed C atho li c m ino ri ty statu s. T h e testi m o n ial an d d o cu m en tarysu p p o rt fort hei rappl i cat i ons m aybe s um m ar i zed a s fol l ow s . A s t o M s . L i ong, s he t es t i fi ed t hat , as
a y out h, s he had l os t t he oppor tuni t y t o att end a C hi nes e s chool w h en the In d ones i an gover nm ent s hut i t dow n i n ei t her 1963 or1964. She t es t i fi ed t o herbel i ef thatt hi s occurr ed t o pr eventnat i ve C hi nes e I ndon esian s fr om l earni ng C hi nes e. A tt hi s s chool and at
su b sequen t schoo l s she at t end ed, M s. L i on g t est i fi ed, nati ve I nd on esi an chi l dren w o u ld har as s herbyt ouchi ng herbody
. M s . L i ong al s o t es t i fi ed, w i t houts peci fi c r efe r ence t o t i m e, th a t n a tiv e In d o n e sia n s w o u ld th ro w sto n e s a t h e r f a m ily ’s h o u se , an d th a t lo c a l p o lice d id not hi ng i n r espo n s e unl es s t heyw er e off er ed paym ent s . A ddi t i onal l y , M s . L i ong t es t i fi ed t hats he had be en for ced t o pay hi gher fee s t han nat i ve I ndones i ans foroffi ci al paper s s uch
as t hos e nece s s ar y t o appl y forci t i zens hi p, and thatherhus band, w ho r emai ned i n I ndones i a, had upon s ever al occa s i ons been r obbed i n hi s car or at hi s s t or e. M s . L i ong des cr i bed t he
r obber s as gangs . Fi nal l y , as t o her s t atus as a C athol i c mi nor i t y , M s . L i ong t es t i fi ed thats he feared go i ng t o chu rch b ecause of bo m b t hreat s an d becau se o f i nd i vidual s thr ow i ng st on es. W i t h r es pectt o herC athol i ci s m , M r s . L i ong di d nott es t i fyt o anys peci fi c i nci dent s di r ect ed
a g a in s t h e r p e rs o n a lly.4

A s t o M s. S u tan to , b oth M s. L i on g an d M s. S utant o tes t i fi ed that , as a chi l d, M s. Sut ant o w as r epea t edl yt ouched a nd har as s ed bynat i ve I ndones i ans . I n one i ns t ance , t hey bot h t es t i fi ed, fournat i ve I ndones i ans t hr ew s and and garbage a tM s . Sut ant o w hen s he w as ei ghty ear s ol d. M s . Sut ant o al s o t es t i fi ed thatonce, on herw ayto school , s he had be en
r obbed by nat i ve I ndones i ans . She t es t i fi ed t hat her ethni c C hi nes e fr i ends h ad also been
ro b b e d b yn a tiv e In d o n e s ia n s . W i t h r es pectt o t he r i ot s t hatoccurr ed i n I ndones i an ci t i es i n 199 8 , b o th M s. L i ong and M s . Sut ant o t es t i fi ed thatt heyw er e onl yaff ect ed i n one ci r cums tance . W hi l e t aki ng publ i c tr ans por t at i on, a part i cul art r ans fercaus ed them t o be i n a van tr ans por t i ng onl ynat i ve I ndones i ans . B ot h Pet i t i oner s t es t i fi ed thatt he dr i vero f the van s t opped the vehi cl e and
o rde red M s. L ion g an d h er d au g h ter t o turn o v er al l jew elry an d it em s o f v alue
. P eti ti o n ers
c o m p lied . B o th M s. L io n g a n d h e r d a u g h ter tes tifie d to b e in g f e a rf u l o f th e ir p h y sic a l sa f

e ty d u rin g th is in c id e n t. In a d d iti o n to th e a b o v e tes tim o n ya b o u t t h e ir situ a tio n s a risin g o u t o f th e ir e th n ic C h in e se m in o ritysta tu s an d th e ir C a th o lic m in o ritysta tu s, P e tit io n e rs a lso tes tifie d to th e ir
r eas ons forw ant i ng t o l eave I ndones i a fort he U ni t ed St at es . H er e, M s . L i ong t es t i fi ed that
s h e wa n t e d t o l e a v e I n d o n e s i a b e c a u s e t h e s o c i a l c l i ma t e wa s b e c o mi n g c h a o t i c , t h e e c o n o my
w as fai l i ng, and s he fe ar ed herdaught erw oul d be r aped. She t es t i fi ed t hat s he came t o t he U ni t ed St at es w i t h t he i nt entof enr ol l i ng herdaught eri n col l ege. She t es t i fi ed that s he
w ant ed her daught er t o l i ve i n t he U ni t ed St at es fors ecur i t yr eas ons . M s . Sut ant o t es t i fi ed5

tha ts he di d notfee l s ecur e l i vi ng i n I ndones i a, t hats he fe ar ed r etur ni ng t o I ndones i a, and t hatherfatherhad w arned hernott o r etur n. P e tit io n e rs a lso o f

f e re d d o c u m e n tar y e v id e n c e . T h is c o n sis ted o f a lette r f ro m th e S t. T hom as A qui nas R ect ory i n Phi l adel phi a s t at i ng t hatM s . L i ong w as a mem berof t hat chu rch. U po n obj ect i on t o t he do cum ent by t he go vernm ent on authent i cat i on groun ds, M s. L i ong t es t i fi ed t hats he had not know n t hats he coul d, ors houl d, as k a w i t nes s fr om t he R ect or yt o t es t i fy
. M s . L i ong al s o s ubm i t t ed t w o bapt i s m cert i fi cat es , one forher s el f and one for her daught er . T he I J r evi ew ed t hem, t hen s t at ed fort he r ecor d t hattheyw oul d be gi ven
no w ei ghtbeca us e M s . Sut ant o’ s cert i fi cat e suf fe red fr om obvi ous w hi t e- outal t er at i ons i n v o l v i n g d i f

f e r e n tt yp e wr i t e rp r i n tf

o n t s a s t o h e rd a t e o f

b a p t i s m. III
. B eca us e the B I A di d noti s s ue a s epar at e or der but m er el y adopt ed t he opi ni on of t he IJ , w e m u s t r e v i e w t h e d e c is io n o f th e IJ
. A b d u la i v. A sh c ro ft , 239 F. 3d 542, 549 n. 2 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). W e h a v e ju risd ictio n to re v ie w th e B o a r d 's f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l p u rsu a n t to I N A § 242( a) ( 1) , 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252( a) ( 1)
. W e r evi ew t o det er m i ne w hethersu b st ant i al evi dence exi s t s t o s uppor tt he age ncydeci s i on. U ndert hi s hi ghl ydefer ent i al s t andar d of
re v iew , the f

in d in g s o f

th e B IA o r a n IJ “ m u st b e u p h e ld u n les s th e e v id e n c e n o t o n ly
s uppor t s a contr ar y concl us i on, but compel s i t . ” A b d ill e v . A sh c ro ft , 242 F. 3d 477, 483- 84 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( ci t i ng I

N S v. E l i as - Zacar i as , 5 0 2 U
. S
. 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 & n . 1 (19 9 2 )). T o es t abl i s h an a sy lum cl ai m underI N A § 208( a) , 8 U
. S. C
. § 1158( a) , a pet i t i oner6

m us ts how t hathe ors he qual i fi es as a r efuge e. A “r efuge e” i s defi ned as an i ndi vi dual w ho is o u tsi d e of h is co u n try o f na ti o n ali ty an d “u n ab le o r u n w il li n g to r eturn to . . . . that co u n try beca us e of pe r secut i on ora w el l
- founded f earof per s ecut i on on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on,
n a tio n a lity, m e m b e rs h ip i n a p a r t i c 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 10 1(a) (42)( A ). P et iti o n e rs h a d th e b u rd e n o f su p p o rtin g th e ir a sy lu m c laim th ro u g h c re d ib le
e v id e n c e . A b d ille , 242 F. 3d at482. B eca us e the s t andar d fo r a s y l um i s l ow ert han the
s t andar d forw i t hhol di n g of r emoval , i f Pet i t i oner s cannotm eett he s ubs t ant i al evi dence st and ard as t o their asy l um cl ai m , rel i ef unde r t heir w i t hh oldi ng of rem ov al cl ai m m ustal so f a il. S e e A b d u lra h m a n v . A sh c ro ft , 3 3 0 F .3 d 5 8 7 , 5 9 1 n . 2 (3 d C ir
. 2 0 0 3 ) (c itin g 8 C .F .R . § 208. 16( c) ( 2) & ( 4) )
. Pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m for r el i ef undert he C A T fai l s fors i m i l arr eas ons , as t he C A T onl yappl i es t o t or tur e that “i s i nfl i ct ed by oratt he i ns t i gat i on of orw i t h t he cons ent
o ra c q u i e s c e n c e o f

a p u b l i c o f

f i c i a l o r o t h e r p e r s o n a c t i n g i n a n o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y . ” 8 C. F
. R. § 2 0 8 .1 8 (a )( 1 ). H er e, t he I J found t hatPet i t i oner s ’ t es t i m ony r egar di ng t he al l eged per s ecut i on t hey fac ed ar i s i ng fr om bot h t hei rnat i ve C hi nes e mi nor i t ys t atus and t hei r C athol i c mi nor i t ys t atus
w as i ns uffi ci entt o carr yt hei rbur den o f p roof. O urr evi ew of t he r ecor d confi r m s t hat
s ubs t ant i al evi dence s u p p o rt s t hi s det er m i nat i on. T he i nci dent s t hatPet i t i oner s have t es t i fi ed to d o n o t am o u n t to p e rse c u tio n , w h ich w e h a v e h e ld to m e a n “ th re a ts to life , co n f in e m e n t, t or tur e, and ec onom i c r es t r i ct i ons s o s ever e thatt heycons t i tut e a thr eatt o l i fe orfr eedom”) but( “does notencompas s al l t r eatm entt hatour so ci etyr egar ds as unfai r , unj us t , oreven7

u n la w f u l o r u n c o n s titu tio n a l” ). Fa t i n v . I NS , 12 F. 3d 1233, 1240 ( 3d C i r . 1993)
. Fur t her m or e, even i f Pet i t i oner s ’ t es t i m onyhad ar t i cul at ed at t acks r i s i ng t o a l evel s uffi ci ent t o be cons i der ed per s ecut i on, t he nec es s arynexus t o governm ent act i on ori nact i on i s abs ent h ere . Pet i t i oner s have r ecount ed onl yi nci dent s perpetr at ed byot herI ndones i ans w i t h, at
m os t , a per i p h er al gover nm entnexus . T hi s i s i ns uffi ci entt o m eetPet i t i oner s ’ bur den of pr oof, becau se the conceptof “pe r s ecut i on” nec es s ar i l yi nvol ves ei t hergovernm ent i nvol vement ort he i nvol vement of i ndi vi dual s t hat t he governm ent i s “unabl e orunw i l l i ng” t o c o n tr o l. S e e G a o v . A sh c ro ft , 299 F. 3d 266, 272 ( 3d C i r . 2002)
. H er e, t her e i s no s uch evi dence, a n d Pet i t i oner s ’ t es t i m onyt hatpol i ce of fi cer s w er e unw i l l i ng t o r es pond w hen nat i ve I ndones i ans t hr ew r ocks atPet i t i oner s ’ hous e i s notenough undert he s ubs t ant i al
ev iden ce stan d ard o f re v iew to co m p el u s to rea ch a c o n clus ion d iffe ren t from that o f th e IJ and B I A bel ow . Si m i l ar l y , there is no evi dence i n t he r ecor d of per s ecut i on ar i s i ng fr om Pet i t i oner s ’ C athol i c mi nor i t y s t atus ; and even i f t her e w as , Pet i t i oner s have f ai l ed t o s how t hatanys uch mi s t r eatm entw as at t r i but abl e t o ei t herdi r ectgovernm ent i nvol vement ort he gover nm ent ’ s i nabi l i t yt o co n tr o l nat i ve I ndones i ans i n r el at i on t o Pet i t i oner s ’ r el i gi ous st atus. Fi nal l y , w e obs er ve thatt he governm enti nt r oduced i n to the r ecor d i n t hi s cas e a M ar ch 2002 R epor ton H um an R i ght s Pr act i ces i s s ued byt he U ni t ed S t at es D epart m entof S t at e. In the R epo rt , t he S t at e D epart m ent i nd i cat es t hat r aci al l y -m oti vated at t acks ag ai nst Si no- I ndones i ans have s harpl ycur t ai l ed s i nce t he m i ddl e of 1998, t hat I ndones i ans ar e now8

per m i t t ed t o t eac h, s peak, and pr i nt t he C hi nes e l anguage , and t hatI ndones i a no l ongerbans C hi nes e l anguage publ i cat i ons. W hi l e the R epor tcl ear l yacknow l edges t hatat t acks do
co n ti n u e to b e re p o rt ed , itn o n ethe less co n sti tutes su b stan ti al ev id e n ce su p p o rt ing the IJ’s det er m i nat i on t hatcountr y condi t i ons have change d, and i t r ebut s any pos s i bl e pr es um pt i on
o f f u ture p er s e c u tio n . S e e , e.g ., L u kw a g o v . A sh c ro ft , 3 2 9 F
. 3 d 1 5 7 , 1 7 4 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 3 ). W e have cons i der ed al l of t he r emai ni ng argu m ent s advanc ed byt he part i es and
c o n c lu d e th a t n o f

u rth e r d isc u ss io n is ne c e ss a ry . S u b sta n tial e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd su p p o rts t he finding t hat Pet i t i on ers fai l ed to m eett heirbu rden of p ro o f t hat theyexp eri enced past per s ecut i on due t o t hei ret hni ci t yorr el i gi on ort hatt heyw oul d be s ubj ectt o per s ecut i on on
a c c o u n t o f

th e ire th n ic ity o r r e lig io n if re tu rn e d to In d o n e s ia
. I V. F o rt h e r e a s o n s s e tf

o r t h , we wi l l d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.