2006 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 12-21-2006 

# Lie m 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 . 05-4248

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_2006

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 2006 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 ie m v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 50. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/50NOT 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. 05- 4248

___________ G I O K L A N G L I E M, Pet i t i oner v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES,

R es pondent

___________ 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 ( N o. A 79- 331- 026) I m m i gr at i on J udge: R . K . M al l oy

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

O ct ober4, 2006 B efore: M cK E E , A M B R O , and N Y G A A R D , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed D ece m ber21, 2006 )

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udge.2 Pet i t i onerG i ok L ang Li em, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of I ndones i a, s eeks r evi ew o f a f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l is s u e d b yth e B u re a u o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (B IA ). Speci fi cal l y , t he Pet i t i oneri s appea l i ng the dec i s i on of the I m m i gr at i on J udge deny i ng her a p p lica tio n f

o r a sy lu m b a se d o n h e r C h in e se e th n icitya n d h e r C h ristia n re lig io n . W e w ill d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. I. B e c a u se w e w rite f

o r th e so le b e n e f

it o f th e p a rties to th is a p p e a l, w e w ill r eci t e onl yt he fa ct s nece s s aryt o ouranal y s i s . Pet i t i onerG i ok L ang Li em i s a ci t i zen a nd nat i ve of I ndones i a and w as admi t t ed t o t he U ni t ed St at es as a non- i m m i gr ant . Pet i t i oner s t ay ed i n t hi s countr yl ongert han w as perm i t t ed. R emoval pr ocee di ngs w er e i ni t i at ed agai ns therw hen the form erI m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce ( I N S) s erved P e titio n e r w ith a N o tic e to A p p e a r c h a rg in g h e r w ith re m o v a b ility u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B) . P e t i t i o n e rc o n c e d e d r e mo v a b i l i t y , b u tr e q u e s t e d a g r a n to f a s y l u m, w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , pr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e, or al t ernat i vel y , t he pr i vi l ege of vol unt arydepartur e.

II. Pet i t i onerm ai nt ai ns s he w as per s ecut ed i n I ndones i a bec aus e of he r C hi nes e ethni ci t yand heri dent i fi cat i on w i t h t he C hr i s t i an r el i gi on. A therr emoval hear i ng, t he Pet i t i onerw as as ked i f s he had e xper i ence d anyper s ecut i on i n I ndones i a on a c c o u n t o f

h e r e th n icityo r re lig io n . S h e tes tifie d th a t an in d iv id u a l o f C h in e se e th n icityis3

“l ooked dow n upon. ” Pet i t i onerfur t heri ndi cat ed that , i n I ndones i a, i ndi vi dual s of C hi nes e ethni ci t yar e “r i di cul ed and c al l ed names . ” W hen as ked i f s he had e xper i ence d anypr obl ems orper s ecut i on on acc ountof herr el i gi on, Pet i t i onerw as equal l yvague, i ndi cat i ng t o t he i m m i gr at i on j udge that“manychur ches had bee n des t r oy ed. ” A l t hough t he admi ni s t r at i ve r ecor d i s r epl et e w i t h t he Pet i t i oner ’ s s t at ement s i ndi cat i ng the gene r al p rob lem s an d /or i n cide n ts of p erse cu ti o n ex p erien ce d b yo ther ind ividu als an d m em b ers of herfami l y , i ti s l acki ng i n anypart i cul ar i zed i nci dent s of per s ecut i on as s oci at ed di r ect l yw i t h t he Pet i t i onerher s el f. She t es t i fi ed thats he has neverexper i ence d any pr obl ems orper s ecut i on per s onal l yw hi l e s he w as l i vi ng i n I ndones i a. Speci fi cal l y , w hen a sk e d w h e th e r sh e h a d a c tu a llyb e e n p ro h ib ited f ro m a tten d in g c h u rc h se rv ice s in I ndones i a, s he i ndi cat ed “N o. ” A . R . at83. W hen as ked w hethers he had e ver exper i ence d anyphy s i cal harm of anyki nd w hi l e l i vi ng i n I ndones i a, s he t es t i fi ed “no, n o t m y s e lf.” Id .

B as ed on the ca l i berand cont entof thi s t es t i m onyand admi s s i ons , the i m m i gr at i on cour tdet erm i ned thatt he Pet i t i oner“utt er l yfai l ed t o es t abl i s h t hats he s u f f e re d p a s t p e rs e c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f h e r e th n ic ity o r r e lig io n .” A .R . a t 4 4 . A ddi t i onal l y , t he i m m i gr at i on cour tdi d notfi nd thats he w oul d s uffe rfutur e per s ecut i on i f r etur ned t o I ndones i a ort hats he w oul d exper i ence governm ent - s pons or ed t or tur e i f s he r etur ned. A . R . at45- 46. T he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s aff i r m ed thi s det erm i nat i on a n d P e tit io n e r f

iled th e in sta n t P e tit io n f o r R e v iew w ith th is c o u rt.4 III . T he Pet i t i onerm us tdemonstr at e a “ cl earpr obabi l i t y ” thatherl i fe or fr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened i f s he i s depor t ed i n or dert o qual i fyforw i t hhol di ng of re m o v a l. S e e Mu la n g a v . A sh c ro ft , 349 F. 3d 123, 132 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . U nderthat sta n d a rd , w e m u st d e ter m in e w h e th e r it is m o re lik e lyth a n n o t th a t th e P e tit io n e r w o u ld be s ubj ect ed per s ecut i on w er e s he t o r eturn. I d. I ti s the Pet i t i oner ’ s bur den t o pr ove that h e r l if e o r f re e d o m w o u ld b e th re a te n e d o n a c c o u n t o f h e r e th n ic ity a n d /o r h e r r e lig io n . 8 C . F. R . § 1208. 16( b) . Fur t herm or e, w e r evi ew the i m m i gr at i on court ’ s fac tual det erm i nat i ons t hatt he Pet i t i onerfai l ed t o demonstr at e el i gi bi l i t yforr el i ef f or “s ubs t ant i al evi dence . ” Thi s m eans thatw e w i l l uphol d t he i m m i gr at i on court ’ s fi ndi ngs if th eyare su p p o rt ed b y“re aso n ab le, su b stan ti al an d p rob ati v e e v iden ce o n the re co rd w hen cons i der ed as a w hol e. ” 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 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ); s ee al

s o Sukw anputr a v. G onz al es , 4 3 4 F . 3 d 6 2 7 , 6 3 0 n . 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). P e titio n e r h a s n o t m e t th is b u rd e n .

Ou rr e v i e w o f

t h e a d mi n i s t r a t i v e r e c o r d , s p e c i f i c a l l yth e P e t i t i o n e r ’ s o wn t es t i m onyconcl us i vel ydemonstr at es thats he her s el f admi t s t o neverhavi ng been ha r m ed i n I ndones i a, and t o neverhavi ng been pr ohi bi t ed fr om at t endi ng chur ch. A s w e have poi nt ed outear l i er , everyi nci dentof per s ecut i on s he hi ghl i ght ed i n hert es t i m onyw as rep o rt ed g en era ll yo r ha p p en ed to so m e m em b er o f h er f am il y . A d d it ion all y , the re co rd5

i ndi cat es t he Pet i t i oner ’ s admi s s i on thatherpr i nci pal r eas on forw i s hi ng t o r emai n i n the U ni t ed St at es i s economi c oppor tuni t y , notfea rof per s ecut i on. A . R . 85. I V. W e c o n clud e tha t th e P eti ti o n er h as n o t est ab li sh ed a c lai m o f p ast o r fu ture per s ecut i on, ei t herbyr eas on of herethni ci tyorherr el i gi ous aff i l i at i on, and thatthe im m ig ra tio n ju d g e ’s d e c is io n in th is m a tte r i s s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill a f f ir m th e B .I.A .’s d e n ia l o f w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , the pet i t i on forr evi ew w i l l be deni ed.