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 10-31-2005 

# Pu spit a s ari 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 . 04-1947

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_2005

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 2005 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 " P usp it as ari v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 315. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/315NOT 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- 1947 A N I P U S P IT A S A R I; RI CK Y HUN K HO,

P eti ti o n ers v. *AL BE RT O R. G O N ZA LES, A t t orneyG eneral of the U nit ed S t at es, R es pondent (* S u b s titu te d p u rs u a n t to R u le 4 3 (c ), F e d . R . A p p . P .) 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 ( B I A N os . A 79- 327- 681 and A 79- 327- 682) Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober17, 2005 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , V A N A N T W E R P E N a n d C O W E N , C i r cui tJudges ( Fi l ed O ct ober31, 2005) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT2

S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge . Pet i t i oner s , A ni Puspi t as ar i and R i ckyH un K ho, both ci t i zens of I ndones i a w ho ar e ethni c C hi nes e and hol d C hr i s t i an bel i efs , s eek r evi ew of a f i nal or derof r emoval i s s ued bythe B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s on M ar ch 9, 2004. T he or derr ever s ed the d e c isio n o f

th e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e , w h ich g ra n ted a sy lu m a n d w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l to b o th p e titio n e rs . W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w th e B IA ’s o rd e r p u rs u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1252. I. T he B I A det erm i ned both pet i t i oner s w er e s t atut or i l ybarr ed fr om cons i der at i on for as y l um beca us e theydi d notfi l e thei rappl i cat i ons w i thi n the s peci fi ed one- y earper i od a n d f a iled to d e m o n stra te e x tra o rd in a ryc irc u m sta n c e s ju stif y in g th e d e lay. T o b e e lig ib le foras y l um , an appl i cantm us tfi l e hi s orherappl i cat i on w i thi n one y earof arr i val i n t he U ni t ed St at es . 8 U . S. C . § 1158( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( 2000) . H ow ever , the B I A m aycons i deran u n tim e lya p p lica tio n if

th e a p p lica n t d e m o n stra tes e x tra o rd in a ryc irc u m sta n c e s re late d to th e d e la y . § 1 1 5 8 (a )( 2 )( D ). M s. P u sp it asa ri fil ed h er a sy lum ap p li ca ti o n ap p rox im atelyo n e a n d a h alf y ea rs a f ter th e f ili n g d e a d lin e h a d e x p ire d , an d M r. K h o f iled h is a p p lica tio n a p p ro x im a telysix m o n th s a f

ter th e e x p ira tio n o f

th e d e a d lin e . T h e IJ f

o u n d se v e ra l f

a c to rs r e lev a n t to its con cl usi on that pet i t i on ers w ere j ust i fi ed in the d el ay , i ncludi ng the ef fect s of pa st per s ecut i on, thei rl ack of know l edge a boutthe as y l um pr oces s , and thei rfea rthatT he D epart m entof H om el and Secur i ty( “D H S”) w as form er l ythe I m m i gr at i on and 1 N atura li za ti o n S erv ice (“IN S ”). 3 a p p lic a tio n f

o r a s y lu m c o u ld e n d a n g e r M s . P u s p ita s a ri ’s f a m ily sti ll liv in g in In d o n e s ia . T h e B IA re v e rse d th e IJ’ s d e c isio n , fin d in g sig n if ica n t th e lac k o f

m e d ica l ev id e n c e to d em o n str ate tha t th e p h y sical or m en tal ef fe cts o f p ast p erse cu ti o n p rev en ted p eti ti o n ers fr om t i m el yfi l i ng an appl i cat i on. T he B I A al s o not ed the s t atut oryt i m e per i od i s not to lle d “ b e c a u s e a n a lie n w a s u n a w a re o f th e a s y lu m p ro c e s s .” W e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew w hethera s how i ng of extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s h a s b e e n m a d e to ju s tif

yw a iv in g th e o n e -ye a r l im ita tio n im p o s e d o n a s y lu m a p p lic a tio n s . T a rr a w a lly v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 3 8 F .3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( c itin g 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (a )( 3 )) . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we l a c k j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w p e t i t i o n e r s ’ a s y l u m c l a i m. II. Pet i t i oner s al s o appea l the B I A ’ s r ever s al of the I J ’ s deci s i on t o gr antw i thhol di ng of r emoval . A n appl i canti s ent i t l ed t o w i thhol di ng of r emoval w hen “the al i en’ s l i fe or fr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened i n [hi s orher ] countrybeca us e of the al i en’ s r ace , r el i gi on, 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 . § 1231( b) ( 3) ( A ) . I f the appl i canti s det erm i ned t o have s uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on on the bas i s of one of

thes e fa ct or s , a pr es um pt i on ar i s es thathi s orherl i fe orfr eedom w oul d be th re a te n e d u p o n re tu rn in g to th e c o u n tr yo f re m o v a l. 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 6 (b )( 1 )( i) (2 0 0 5 ). T hi s pr es um pt i on m aybe r ebutt ed i f the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i ty demonstr at es 14

bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence a funda m ent al change i n ci r cumst ance s w i thi n the country , s uch thatthe appl i cant ’ s l i fe orfr eedom w oul d no l ongerbe thr eat ened upon re m o v a l. § 1 2 0 8 .1 6 (b )( 1 )( i) (A ). W e r evi ew the B I A ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ct , i ncl udi ng a det erm i nat i on of cha nged c o u n tr yc o n d itio n s , u n d e r t h e s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s ta n d a rd . A b d ill e v . A sh c ro ft , 242 F. 3d 4 7 7 , 4 8 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). U n d er this de fe ren ti al st an d ard , w e m u st up h o ld the B IA ’s fi ndi ngs “unl es s the evi dence notonl ys uppor t s a contr aryconcl us i on, butcompel s i t . ” I d. a t 4 8 3 -8 4 . H e re , the B IA c o n c lu d e d th e re w a s s ig n if ica n t ev id e n c e th a t co n d iti o n s in I ndones i a have change d s i nce pe t i t i oner s ’ departur es , s uch thattheyno l ongerhave a w el l - founded f

earof per s ecut i on upon r eturn. B as ed on the 2000 St at e D epart m ent C ountryR eportforI ndones i a, the B I A found the I ndones i an governm enthas m ade a gener al comm i t m entt o pr om ot i ng ethni c and r el i gi ous t ol er ance . A cknow l edgi ng evi dence thats om e di s cr i m i nat i on agai ns tethni c C hi nes e cont i nues t o exi s ti n I ndones i a, the B I A emphasi zed thatr aci al l ym ot i vat ed att acks agai ns tSi no- I ndones i ans “dr opped s h a rp ly su b s e q u e n t to m id -1 9 9 8 .” Pet i t i oner s cont end St at e D epart m entcountryr eport s , s t andi ng al one, ar e not r el i abl e enough t o demonstr at e cha nged countrycondi t i ons bya pr eponder ance of the e v id e n c e . H o w e v e r, “w e h a v e h e ld th a t S tate D e p a rtm e n t re p o rts m a yc o n stitu te

‘ s ubs t ant i al evi dence ’ forthe purpos es of r evi ew i ng i m m i gr at i on deci s i ons . ”5

A m b a rts o u m ia n v . A sh c ro ft , 388 F. 3d 85, 89 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( ci t i ng Ka y e m b e v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 3 4 F .3 d 2 3 1 , 2 3 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 )) . S e e a lso Zu b e da v . A sh c ro ft , 333 F. 3d 463, 477- 78 (3d C i r. 20 03 ) ( st at i ng cou ntryreport s ar e “t he m ostapp ropri at e and perhap s the b est re s o u rc e ” f

o r “ in f o rm a tio n o n p o litic a l s itu a tio n s in f o re ig n n a tio n s ” ). R eli an ce o n co u n tryrep o rt s is esp ec ial lyap p rop ri ate w h ere , as h ere , the re p o rt a d d re s s e s th e s p e c if

ic b a s is f o r t h e a p p lic a n t’ s f

e a r o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n . See Ber is hajv. A sh c ro ft , 378 F. 3d 314, 327 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( fi ndi ng the I N S has an obl i gat i on t o r ebut“a p a rt ic u la r a p p lic a n t’ s s p e c if ic g ro u n d s f

o r h is 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 ” ). H er e, the B I A agr eed w i th t he I J ’ s det erm i nat i on thatpet i t i oner s s uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on b a se d o n th e ir C h in e se e th n icitya n d C h ristia n b e lief s. T h is p a st p e rse c u tio n g a v e rise to a presum pti on that pet i t i on ers had a w el l -foun ded fear of fu ture persecut i on on tho se s ame gr ounds . T he 2000 countr yr eporton w hi ch the B I A r el i ed expl i ci t l yaddr es s es ethni c and r el i gi ous l ym ot i vat ed per s ecut i on and fi nds att acks agai ns tethni c C hi nes e have sh arp lyd ec li n ed sinc e m id-1 9 9 8 , the p ri m aryti m e p eriod d u ri n g w h ich p eti ti o n ers w ere per s ecut ed. A ccor di ngl y , ther e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence t o s uppor tthe B I A ’ s concl us i ons a n d w e w ill a f

f irm o n th e d e n ial o f

w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. III . Fi nal l y , pet i t i oner s cont end w e s houl d gr antr el i ef ba s ed on thei rC onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) cl ai m , ori n the al t ernat i ve, r emand t hi s cl ai m foradj udi cat i on.6

A tthe i ni t i al pr ocee di ng befor e the I J , pet i t i oner s br oughtcl ai m s forpol i t i cal asy lum , w ith h o lding o f re m o v al, reli ef u n d er the C A T , an d v o lun taryd ep arture. T h e IJ grant ed asy l um and w i thh oldi ng of rem ov al , bu texp res sl ydecli ned t o ad dress peti t i on ers ’ C A T c la im o r v o lu n ta ry d e p a rt u re a p p lic a tio n s b e c a u s e g re a te r r e lie f h a d b e e n g ra n te d . Pet i t i oner s appea r ed bef or e the B I A i n defe ns e of the governm ent ’ s appea l . U pon r ever s i ng the I J ’ s gr antof as y l um and w i thhol di ng of r emoval , the B I A gr ant ed pet i t i oner s ’ appl i cat i ons forvol unt arydepartur e, butfai l ed t o addr es s the C A T cl ai m on the mer i t s orr emand i tt o t he I J foradj udi cat i on. T he g ov ernm ent ar gu es r em and of the C A T cl ai m i s forecl osed b ypeti t i on ers ’ f a i l u r e t o e x h a u s tth e i ra d m i n i s tr a t i v e r e m e d i e s w i th r e s p e c tt o th i s c l a i m . S p e c i f i c a l l y, the governm entas s ert s pet i t i oner s di d not : 1) obj ectt o the I J ’ s fai l ur e t o adj udi cat e the CA T c l a i m a ttr i a l , 2 ) a p p e a l th e I J ’ s d e c i s i o n n o tt o a d j u d i c a t e th e CA T c l a i m t o th e BI A, o r 3 ) m o v e th e B IA f

o r r e m a n d o f

th e C A T c la im a f

te r i t r e v e rs e d th e IJ ’s d e c is io n . Si gni fi cant l y , pet i t i oner s r ece i ved the r el i ef theys oughtw hen the I J gr ant ed them as y l um and w i thhol di ng of r emoval . I n l i ghtof thi s favor abl e rul i ng, i tw oul d be nons ens i cal t o r equi r e pet i t i oner s t o appea l the I J ’ s fai l ur e t o addr es s an al t ernat i ve gr ound of r el i ef on the mer e pos s i bi l i tythe B I A m i ghtr ever s e the r el i ef a l r eadygr ant ed. F u rth e rm o re , p u rsu a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (d )(1 ), p e tit io n e rs w e re re q u ire d to exhaus tonl ycl ai m s and r emedi es thatw er e “a vai l abl e t o [them] a s of r i ght . ” I n l i ghtof th e u n iq u e p ro c e d u ra l p o s tu re o f th is c a s e , p e titio n e rs h a v e m e t th is re q u ir e m e n t.7

Pet i t i oner s exhaus t ed thei rC A T cl ai m byr ai s i ng i tbefor e the I J i n the fi r s ti ns t ance . T he C A T c laim w a s n o t av a ilab le to p e tit io n e rs b e f o re th e B IA b e c a u se th e B IA ’s a p p e llate ju ri s d ic tio n is lim ite d to re v ie w o f a c tu a l d e c is io n s h a n d e d d o w n b yth e IJ . See 8 C .F .R . § 1003. 1( b) and ( d) . H er e, the I J di d notm ake a det erm i nat i on on the C A T cl ai m , but s t at ed i tw oul d notbe adj udi cat ed “a tthi s poi nt . ” Ther efor e, the B I A , upon overrul i ng the I J ’ s gr antof as y l um and w i thhol di ng of r emoval , s houl d have a ddr es s ed the mer i t s of th e c la im o r r e m a n d e d it to th e IJ . A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude pet i t i oner s di d notfai l t o exhaus tadmi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es avai l abl e t o them as of r i ght , and w e w i l l r emand pet i t i oner s ’ C A T cl ai m t o the BI A. I V. W e w i l l gr antthe pet i t i on forr evi ew , aff i r m i n partthe B oar d’ s or der , and r emand the r ecor d t o the B oar d forpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on.