2007 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 7-12-2007 

# H a di v . S ecret ary H omel and 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 . 06-1067

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_2007

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 2007 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 " H a d i v . S e cr e t ary H omel and " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 781. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/781T he H onor abl e A l an D . L our i e, U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge forthe Feder al * C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 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- 1067

___________ E D W IN S IS W A N T O H A D I, Pet i t i oner v. S E C R E T AR Y O F DE P AR T ME NT OF HO ME L AN D S E C UR I T Y & A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R e sp o n d e n ts

________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r der o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A N o. A 96- 265- 038) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : M iriam K . M ill s

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

M ar ch 15, 2007 B E F O R E : F U E N T E S , G R E E N B E R G , and L O U R IE, C i rcui tJudg es. * ( Fi l ed: J ul y12, 2007 )T h e g o v e rn m e n t as se rts th a t w e d o n o t h a v e ju risd ictio n b e c a u se H a d i d id n o t f ile 1 h is p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w w ith in th ir ty d a y s o f th e B IA ’s o rd e r. S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )( 1 ). H ow ever , the B I A di s m i s s ed hi s appea l on D ece m ber5, 2005, and he f i l ed hi s pet i t i on exac t l ythi r tyday s l at eron J anuary4, 2006. I tappea r s thatH adi fi l ed hi s pet i t i on on J anuary4 w i th t he cl erk’ s offi ce f orthe East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, w hi ch expl ai ns w h yth e c le rk ’s o f

f ic e f o r t h e T h ir d C ir c u it d id n o t d o c k e t th e p e titio n u n til J a n u a ry 5 .

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge. Pet i t i onerE dw i n Si s w ant o H adi ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n A pr i l 2000 on a t our i s tvi s a. I n M ar ch 2003, he appl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef underthe U ni t ed N at i ons C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e. A n i m m i gr at i on j udge ( “I J ”) deni ed r el i ef a nd the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff i r m ed. W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the B I A ’ s or derunder8 U . S. C . § 1252, and w e w i l l denythe 1 p e titio n f o r t h e re a s o n s th a t f

o llo w . I. H ad i, a 2 9 -y ea r-old c it izen o f In d o n esia, i s eth n icall yC h ines e a n d a C h ri sti an . In h i s a p p l i c a t i o n a n d a th i s h e a r i n g b e f o r e th e I J , h e t e s t i f

i e d t o th e f

o l l o wi n g f

a c t s . He gr ew up i n a pr edomi nant l yM us l i m nei ghborhood i n J ember . D ur i ng pr i m arys chool and hi gh s chool , he w as oft en for ced t o gi ve M us l i m s tudent s goods orm oneyand w as beat en w h e n h e re f

u se d . S o m e o f

th e se M u slim stu d e n ts s a id th e yw o u ld k ill h im a n d h is f a m ily i f he r eport ed the i nci dent s t o t eac her s orthe pr i nci pal . D ur i ng one i nci denti n M ar ch 1 9 9 2 , M u s lim s tu d e n ts b e a t h im u p in a p a rk in g lo t a n d s to le h is b ik e .In A u g u st 19 9 7 , three M u sli m s ca m e to h is fam il y ’s ho m e a n d ask ed fo r a

contr i but i on t o t hei rm os que. H adi r efus ed and s l amm ed the doors hutas the men sc re a m e d a n d th re a ten e d h im a n d h is f a m ily , an d th e n k ick e d a t th e d o o r “ w ith a ll th e ir m i ght . ” A pp. 28. T he nextm orni ng the fa m i l ydi s cover ed garbage s tr ew n ar ound the fr ontof thei rhous e and gr aff i t i s t at i ng “St i ngyC hi nes e. R ot t en C hi nes e. ” I d. T he l ocal p o lice c h ief

, w h o w a s a M u slim , d id n o th in g a f ter th e f a m ilyre p o rte d th e in c id e n t. I n M a y1 9 9 8 , Ha d i wa s h o s t i n g a p r a y e rs e s s i o n f o rc h u r c h me mb e r s a th i s h o me w hen fi ve M us l i m nei ghbor s thr ew s t ones thr ough the w i ndow s and y el l ed, among ot her thi ngs , “H ey , y ou C hr i s t i ans , can’ ty ou be qui et ?” H adi appr oache d the men and as ked them t o s t op. T heys t art ed bea t i ng hi m and then pul l ed outkni ves , s t abbi ng hi m i n the a rm o n c e a n d c u tti n g o n e o f h is w rists. C h u rc h m e m b e rs r u sh e d h im to th e n e a re st f a m ily doct orbeca us e he w as “bl eedi ng pr ofus el y . ” A pp. 29. H adi ’ s par ent s r eport ed the in c id e n t to th e p o lice , w h o d e m a n d e d m o n e y . A lth o u g h th e p a re n ts p a id , the p o lice d id no thing. O ver the n ext tw o y ears , H adi and h i s fam i l yw ere s ubj ect ed to verbal threat s, a n o n ym o u s th re a ten in g p h o n e c a lls, g ra f f iti o n th e ir w a lls, an d d e a d m ice p lac e d o n th e ir s te p s . H adi ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n A pr i l 2000 on a t our i s tvi s a and s t ay ed i n the c o u n trya f

t e rth e v i s a e x p i r e d s i x mo n th s l a t e r . I n M a r c h 2 0 0 3 , h e a p p l i e d f o ra s y l u m, w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e. H e w as s erved w ith a N o tic e to A p p e a r i n M a y2 0 0 3 , a n d c o n c e d e d re m o v e a b ility in J u n e 2 0 0 3 . A ft era hea r i ng i n A ugus t2004, the I J rul ed thatH adi had notdemonstr at ed anyc ir c u m s ta n c e s e x c u s in g th e f ilin g o f h is a p p lic a tio n m o re th a n a y e a r a f te r h is a rr iv a l. T he I J fur therdet erm i ned thatH adi w as notcr edi bl e w i th r egar d t o the M ay1998 i nci dent a n d th a t h e o th e rw ise d id n o t q u a lifyf o r re lief. T h e B IA d e n ied h is a p p e a l ev e n th o u g h it r ej ect ed the I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng. T he B I A expl ai ned thatH adi ’ s as y l um appl i cat i on w as unt i m el y , thatthe eve nt s he des cr i bed di d notr i s e t o the l evel of per s ecut i on, and thathe had notdemonstr at ed “agenui ne fe arof futur e per s ecut i on. ” A pp. 13. I tnot ed thatH adi s t ay ed i n the countryfortw o y ear s aft erthe M ay1998 in c id e n t b e f

o re c o m in g to th e U n ited S tate s, a n d th a t h is f a m ilyh a s re m a in e d in In d o n e sia w ith o u t s e ri o u s in c id e n t. II. W e do nothave j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the I J ’ s fi ndi ng thatno extr aor di naryor change d ci r cumst ance s excus ed H adi ’ s fai l ur e t o appl yforas y l um befor e the one- y ear deadl i ne. See Sukw anputr a v. G onzal es , 434 F. 3d 627, 635 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( “[D ] es pi t e the change s of the R E A L I D A ct , 8 U . S. C . § 1158( a) ( 3) cont i nues t o di ves tthe courtof appea l s of j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew a dec i s i on r egar di ng w hetheran al i en es t abl i s hed ch an g ed o r ex tr ao rdin arycircu m stan ce s tha t w o u ld ex cu se h is un ti m elyfil ing . ”). T o qual i fyforw i thhol di ng of r emoval , an appl i cantm us tdemonstr at e a “ cl ear p ro b a b ili ty ” o f

p e rse c u tio n if

re m o v e d ; in o th e r w o rd s, p e rse c u tio n m u st b e m o re lik e ly than not . I N S v. St evi c, 467 U . S. 407, 413, 425 ( 1984) . W e r evi ew the B I A ’ s deni al of w i thhol di ng of r emoval undera s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d. “I f a r eas onabl e fa ct f in d e r c o u ld m a k e a p a rticu lar f in d in g o n th e a d m in istra tiv e re c o rd , the n th e f in d in g iss u p p o rt e d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e .” D ia v . A s h c ro f t, 3 5 3 F .3 d 2 2 8 , 2 4 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). T h e B IA ’s find ing s “m u st be u p h eld u n less the e v iden ce n o t on lysu p p o rt s a c o n tr ary co n clus ion , b u t com p els i t. ” A b d il le v. A sh cro ft, 2 4 2 F . 3 d 4 7 7 , 4 8 3 -84 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). S u b stan ti al ev iden ce su p p o rt s the co n clus ion that H ad i did n o t m ee t th e stan d ard forw i thhol di ng of r emoval . A l though H adi ci t es t o a numberof s our ces i ndi cat i ng that re lig io u s v io len c e in In d o n e sia h a s re m a in e d a p ro b lem , this d o e s n o t es tab lish th a t itis m o re li k elythan n o t th at he w il l be p erse cu ted if re turn ed there , esp ec ial lysinc e c o u n try re p o rt s s u g g e s t th a t c o n d itio n s h a v e im p ro v e d . In a d d iti o n , H a d i h a s n o t es tab lish e d th a t h e is e n tit led to re lief b a se d o n in c id e n ts h e d e sc rib e d . W e h a v e sta ted th a t p e rse c u tio n “ in c lu d e [ s] 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 tr i ct i ons s o s ever e thattheycons t i tut e a thr eatt o l i fe or fr eedom. ” Fat i n v. I N S, 12 F. 3d 1233, 1240 ( 3d C i r . 1993) . W hi l e w e have “noty et dr aw n a pr eci s e l i ne conc erni ng w her e a s i m pl e bea t i ng ends and per s ecut i on begi ns , our cas es s ugges tthati s ol at ed i nci dent s thatdo notr es ul ti n s er i ous i nj urydo notr i s e t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on. ” V oci v. G onzal es , 409 F. 3d 607, 615 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . M uch of the h a r a s s me n tHa d i d e s c r i b e s c l e a r l yd i d n o tr i s e t o th e l e v e l o f p e r s e c u t i o n . Al th o u g h we ar e ce r t ai nl ydi s turbed bythe M ay1998 i nci denti n w hi ch H adi w as beat en and s t abbed, thi s i nci dentoccurr ed tw o y ear s befor e H adi l eftthe country . W hi l e i ti s pos s i bl e thatan i s ol at ed vi ol entacti n conce r tw i th otherhar as s m entcoul d cons t i tut e per s ecut i on under s om e ci r cumst ance s , w e ca nnots aythe evi dence i n thi s cas e compel s a conc l us i on contr aryt o t he one r eac hed bythe B I A . Fur ther , H adi has fai l ed t o es t abl i s h a “c l earp ro b a b ility” o f p e rs e c u tio n if

re tu rn e d to In d o n e s ia . Fi nal l y , H adi has notpr es ent ed addi t i onal evi dence thathe qual i fi es forpr ot ect i on u n d e r t h e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rt u re , i . e. , thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthathe w i l l be to rt u re d if

re m o v e d . S e e O b a le v . A tt’ yG e n ., 4 5 3 F .3 d 1 5 1 , 1 6 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). S u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e , th e re f o re , s u p p o rt s th e d e n ia l o f th is c la im a s w e ll. III . H adi has fai l ed t o demonstr at e thatthe B I A err ed i n r ej ect i ng hi s appl i cat i on for as y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e. For th e re a s o n s d is c u s s e d a b o v e , w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n .