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 1-30-2008 

# Li s t i ani 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 . 06-2752

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 " L i s t i ani v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1674. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1674H onor abl e J an E. D uB oi s , Seni orD i s tr i ctJ udge forthe U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tof * th e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f

P e n n s y lv a n ia , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n .

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. 06- 2752

___________ L E NY L I S T I ANI AND FU- CI EN T HONG, P et i t i on ers , v. ATTO RN EY GE NE RA L OF T HE UN I TED STA TES, R e sp o n d e n t.

________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew fr om th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls B I A N os : A 95- 462- 716, A 95- 462- 717 Im m igrati o n Ju d g e: E sm era lda C ab rera

________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

J anuary3, 2008 B efor e: FU E N T E S, J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges , and D U B O I S, D i s tr i ctJ udge. * ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J anuary30, 2008)T he B I A ’ s j ur i s di ct i on ar os e under8 C . F. R . § § 1003. 1( b) ( 3) , 1240. 15, and 1240. 53,

1 w hi ch gr antthe B I A appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on overthe dec i s i ons of I J s i n r emoval p roc ee d ing s. W e h av e jurisdicti o n to rev iew the B IA ’s fina l ord er o f re m o v al un d er 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . A g a r, a ls o c a lle d a g a r a g a r, i s a typ e o f je lly. 2 2 ___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge. L enyL i s t i ani and Fu- C i en Thong, ethni cal l yC hi nes e i m m i gr ant s fr om I ndones i a, se e k re v iew o f

a f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l issu e d b yth e B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( “B I A ”) , dat ed A pr i l 20, 2006, aff i r m i ng the i m m i gr at i on j udge’ s ( “I J ”) r emoval or der e n te re d o n O c to b e r 2 7 , 2 0 0 4 . F o r t h e re a s o n s th a t f o llo w , th e p e titio n w ill b e d e n ie d . 1 T hong, L i s t i ani ’ s hus band, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es on a t our i s tvi s a i n A ugus tof 1998 and Li s t i ani fol l ow ed, arr i vi ng on a t our i s tvi s a i n J ul yof 2000. L i s t i ani appl i ed for a s y l u m, wi th Th o n g a s a r i d e r , i n M a yo f 2 0 0 1 . Th o n g a n d Li s t i a n i s e e k a s y l u m, w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and C A T r el i ef on the bas i s thatL i s t i ani w as di s cr i m i nat ed a g a in s t in In d o n e s ia b e c a u s e o f h e r C h in e s e e th n ic ity. A tthe hea r i ng on thei rpet i t i ons , the pet i t i oner s conce ded r emovabi l i ty . L i s t i ani t es t i fi ed aboutbei ng for ced t o per form or al s ex on a s uper i oratherj ob foran aga r 2 fac t oryi n 1996. She s t at ed thats he bi thi s peni s i n or dert o getaw ayfr om hi m and w asShe al s o t es t i fi ed thats he w as the vi ct i m of otherant i - C hi nes e vi ol ence buts he does not 3 appea l the I J ’ s deci s i on nott o gr antherpet i t i on on thi s bas i s . Speci fi cal l y , s he t es t i fi ed thati n 1998, s he w as caughti n t he mi ddl e of a m ob s hout i ng “Let ’ s ki l l C hi nes e” a nd m anage d t o hi de i n t he home of an ol derC hi nes e coupl e. ( A dm i n. R . 204. ) She t es t i fi ed th a t th e m o b b ro k e in to th e h o u se , b e a t th e m a n d d e m a n d e d to k n o w w h e re th e ir val uabl es w er e hi dden. A ccor di ng t o her , s he eve ntual l yes cape d t o a pl ace thatw as s afe f ro m th e m o b b u t th e p o lice sto o d b ya n d d id n o t n o th in g to h e lp h e r. A f ter th is e v e n t, T h o n g o b tai n ed a v isa t o g o to the U n it ed S tat es to p rep are to b ri n g h is fam il yo v er. I n 2000, L i s t i ani t es t i fi ed thats he w as att acke d agai n, bym en w ho m ugged herand her fami l y , s tr i ki ng herfatherw i th a met al r od. A ft erthatevent , s he obt ai ned a vi s a and ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es . She l eftherdaught erw i th herm otherbeca us e s he coul d not o b ta in a v is a f

o r h e r. T he pet i t i oner s pr es ents i x di ffe r enti s s ues i n thei rbr i ef butw e cons i derthe i s s ues r ai s ed 4 re g a rd in g L is tia n i’ s ra p e to g e th e r. 3 f ire d f ro m h e r jo b tw o d a y s la ter . S h e tes tifie d th a t T h o n g , the n h e r b o y f rie n d , told h e r to 3 c a ll th e p o lic e b u t th a t s h e re f u s e d . A ft erthe hea r i ng, the I J deni ed thei rpet i t i ons , fi ndi ng, among ot herthi ngs , that L i s t i ani had pr es ent ed no evi dence thats he had be en r aped. O n appea l , the B I A hel d that the I J had comm i t t ed cl earerr orbynotfi ndi ng, on the uncontr adi ct ed evi dence , that L i s t i ani had bee n r aped. N everthel es s , the B I A aff i r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on deny i ng r el i ef beca us e the pet i t i oner s had nots how n thatthe r ape t ook pl ace on acc ountof a pr ot ect ed g ro u n d . T h is a p p e a l f

o llo w e d . L ist iani an d T h o n g ask the c o u rtto co n side r th ree issue s: 1 ) w h ethe r L ist iani’s 4 pet i t i on s houl d be gr ant ed on the bas i s thatherr ape c ons t i tut ed per s ecut i on on a pr ot ect ed g ro u n d , 2 ) w h e th e r th e IJ e rre d b yre f u sin g to p e rm it th e p e tit io n e rs to tes tifyin th e ir nat i ve l anguage thr ough an i nt erpr et er , and 3) w hetherthe I J act ed i m pr oper l ybyy el l i ngIn h e r b rie f to th e B IA , tho u g h sh e a rg u e d th a t C h in e se w o m e n h a v e b e e n h isto ric a lly 5 t ar get ed as r ape vi ct i m s i n I ndones i a, s he di d notpr es entanyevi dence i ndi cat i ng thatt he sex u al assa u ltsh e su ff

ere d w as m o ti v ated b yh er e thn ici ty . (A d m in. R . 1 8 . )

4 a t T h o n g f

o r d e sc rib in g h is h isto ryo f d isc rim in a tio n a s a n e th n ic C h in e se m a n in I ndones i a. W e r evi ew the I J ' s orB I A ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ctunderthe def er ent i al s ubs t ant i al e v id e n c e sta n d a rd . C h e n v . A sh c ro f t, 37 6 F .3 d 2 1 5 , 2 2 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). U n d e r th is sta n d a rd , “th e a d m in istra tiv e f in d in g s o f

f a c t ar e c o n c lu siv e u n les s a n yre a so 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 ). O n th e o th e r h a n d , w h e n w e re v iew “ th e B IA ’s a p p lica tio n o f leg a l p rin c ip les to u n d isp u ted f

a c ts, ra th e r th a n its u n d e rly in g d e ter m in a tio n o f th o se f a c ts o r its i nt erpr et at i on of i t s governi ng s t atut es , ourr evi ew i s de novo. ” Y i L ong Y ang v. G o n za les, 4 7 8 F . 3 d 1 3 3 , 1 4 1 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). L i s t i ani ’ s compl ai ntthatthe I J i m pr oper l yhel d thats he w as notr aped i s m ootas the B I A has al r eadyrul ed thatthe I J ’ s hol di ng w as err or . T hus , ther e i s no di s put e that L i s t i ani w as a vi ct i m of s exual as s aul t . T he ques t i on i s w hetherthatas s aul ti s the pr oper b a sis f o r g ra n tin g L istian i’s p e tit io n . L istian i as se rts f o r th e f irst tim e in h e r b rie f

to th is c o u rt th a t sh e w a s ra p e d b e c a u se h e r a ss a ilan t f e lt th a t h e w o u ld b e a b le to g e t aw a yw ith itb ec au se sh e is ethn icall yC h ines e. S ince sh e f ail ed to raise this arg u m en t bef o re the IJ o r B IA , itis u n e x h a u ste d a n d u n re v iew a b le p u rsu a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (d )(1 ). T h e re is 5 no bas i s i n t he l aw t o gr anta pet i t i on t o an i ndi vi dual w ho has been r aped, abs entan5

a rg u m e n t th a t th e ra p e w a s c o m m itte d o n a c c o u n t o f a s ta tu to ri ly p ro te c te d g ro u n d . Second, L i s t i ani compl ai ns thatthe I J r efus ed t o al l ow the pet i t i oner s t o us e a tr ans l at or . T he B I A found the I J ’ s deci s i on “t o keep a n i nt erpr et eron hand [t o be] a m e lio ra tiv e o f

a n yp re ju d ice e ith e r re sp o n d e n t co u ld a lleg e , an d in su f f icie n t f o r u s to d is tu rb th e re s u lt h e re .” (A d m in . R . 4 .) T h e B IA ’s d e c is io n o n th is is s u e w a s n o t e rr o r. F in a lly , L istian i ac c u se s th e IJ o f g o in g o f f th e re c o rd to m a k e p a rticu lar lyh o stile comm ent s t o t he pet i t i oner s , s uch as y el l i ng atT hong for“deni gr at i ng nat i ve Ind o n esian s” a fter h e d esc ri b ed the d iscri m ination h e e x p erien ce d in In d o n esia. (Pe t. B r. a t 1 5 .) T h is c la im is n o t e x h a u s te d a n d , th u s , w e c a n n o t r e v ie w it. 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (d )( 1 ). F o r t h e re a s o n s s ta te d , th e p e titio n w ill b e d e n ie d .