2009 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 11-4-2009 

# Ngo 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 . 08-1999

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_2009

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 2009 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 " Ng o v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 308. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/308NOT 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. 08- 1999

___________ HE NDR A UGAH AR Y NGO, 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

____________________________________ 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 ( A gencyN o. A 96- 262- 922) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M iriam K . M ill s

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober21, 2009 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, SM I T H and W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges

O pi ni on fi l ed: N ovember4, 2009

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

H endr a U gaharyN go, an I ndones i an nat i ve and c i t i zen, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a f i nal or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “the B oar d”) , aff i r m i ng the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) deni al of hi s appl i cat i ons foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval a n d r e l i e f

u n d e rth e Co n v e n t i o n Ag a i n s tT o r tu r e ( “ CA T ” ) . F o rth e f o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , we2

w ill d e n yth e p e titio n .

T he I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce pl ace d N go i n r emoval p r o c e e d i n g s b yth e i s s u a n c e o f a Not i c e t o App e a r( “ NTA ” ) o n M a y1 3 , 2 0 0 3 . Th e NTA char ged N go w i th bei ng r emovabl e pur s uantt o I N A § 237( a) ( 1) ( B ) , forr emai ni ng i n the U ni t ed St at es w i thoutperm i s s i on of the governm ent . N go admi t t ed the fa ctual al l egat i ons i n t he N T A and s oughtas y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on fr om rem o v al un d er the C A T . N g o ’s w ri tt en ap p li ca ti o n cit ed “m istrea tm en t and p ressu re f ro m p e o p le in th e g o v e rn m e n t” o v e r th e 5 0 y e a rs th a t h e liv e d in In d o n e sia a s th e b a sis f o r re lief. (A .R . at 4 3 2 .) In p a rticu lar , N g o sta ted th a t h e e x p e rie n c e d d isc rim in a tio n in lan g u a g e , sc h o o lin g , cu ltu re , an d g o v e rn m e n t b e n e f its. H e a lso e x p e rie n c e d a ss a u lts in 1 9 7 4 an d 1 9 7 8 , an d p rop ertyd am ag e in 1 9 8 3 . N g o test ifi ed that h e a n d h is fam il yw ere f re q u e n tlyth re a ten e d a n d h a ra ss e d b yM u slim s b o th b e c a u se o f th e ir C h in e se e th n icity and bec aus e theyw er e pr act i ci ng C hr i s t i ans . I n 1992 and 1997, N go w i tnes s ed di s cr i m i nat i on and as s aul t s agai ns totherethni c C hi nes e. H e al s o ci t ed the M ay1998 ri o ts in w h ic h n a tiv e s v io le n tly a s s a u lte d th e p e rs o n s a n d p ro p e rt yo f e th n ic C h in e s e . D ur i ng thi s per i od, al though hi s fami l yfound s afe r efuge , N go t es t i fi ed thathi s hom e w as damaged, hi s car s burned, and thathe s us t ai ned i nj ur i es t o hi s hand w hen i tw as hi tw i th a ten -p o u n d b ric k . N g o tes tifie d th a t d u rin g c h u rc h b o m b in g s in N o v e m b e r 1 9 9 8 , h is ey egl as s es w er e br oken. W or s e, a man w i th w hom he l i ved w as m ur der ed. I n 1999, chur ches w er e bombed, caus i ng cargl as s t o s hatt erand cutt i ng N go. A ccor di ng t o the3

IJ ’s s u m m a ry o f

N g o ’s te s tim o n y , N g o ’s c h u rc h re m a in e d u n h a rm e d , a s d id h is f a m ily. A tN go’ s fi r s thear i ng, the I J det erm i ned thatN go had mi s s ed the one- y ear fi l i ng deadl i ne forhi s as y l um appl i cat i on. W i th r egar d t o hi s w i thhol di ng of r emoval and C A T cl ai m s , the I J found N go i ncr edi bl e bas ed on an omi s s i on i n hi s t es t i m onyas compar ed t o hi s w r i t t en appl i cat i on. T he I J fur therfound thatN go fai l ed t o pr ovi de i ndepende ntcorr obor at i ng evi dence i n s uppor tof hi s t es t i m ony . O n February25, 2005, the B oar d aff

i r m ed the I J ’ s fi ndi ng w i th r egar d t o the t i m el i nes s of N go’ s as y l um appl i cat i on. W i th r egar d t o N go’ s r emai ni ng cl ai m s forr el i ef, the B oar d found thatthe s ol e omi s s i on r el at i ng t o hi s s on’ s curr entfea rof harm w as nots uffi ci entt o s uppor tan adver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng. T he B oar d r emanded the ca s e t o the I J t o gi ve N go the o p p o rt u n ity to p re s e n t a d d itio n a l e v id e n c e .

O n rem an d , the IJ a g ain m ad e a n ad v erse cre d ibil ityfin d ing . T h e B o ard d ism iss e d N g o ’s a p p e a l o n M a rc h 4 , 2 0 0 8 , w ith o u t ad d re ss in g th e IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on. T he B oar d concl uded thatthe al l eged e vent s di d notr i s e t o the l evel of p e rse c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f a p ro tec ted g ro u n d o r d e m o n stra te th a t N g o f a c e d a p ro b a b ili ty of futur e per s ecut i on i f he r eturned t o I ndones i a. T he B oar d al s o det erm i ned thatN go f a ile d to s h o w th a t h e w a s m o re lik e ly th a n n o t to f a c e to rt u re o n h is re tu rn to In d o n e s ia . N g o tim e ly f

ile d a p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w in th is C o u rt . W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) . W e uphol d the B oar d’ s det erm i nat i ons i f theyar e s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al and pr obat i veN go does notcont es tthe B I A ’ s t i m el i nes s det erm i nat i on w i th r egar d t o hi s as y l um 1 a p p lic a tio n . 4 evi dence on the r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e. Y us upov v. A t t ’ yG en. , 518 F. 3d 185, 197 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . U nderthe s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d, “the B I A ’ s fi ndi ng m us tbe uphel d unl es s the evi dence notonl ys uppor t s a contr aryconcl us i on, butcompel s i t . ” A bd i l l e v. A shcroft , 24 2 F . 3d 47 7, 48 3-84 (3d C i r. 20 01 ) ( ci t i ng IN S v. E l i as- Z acari as, 5 0 2 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 n .1 (1 9 9 2 )) .

T o be el i gi bl e forw i thhol di ng of r emoval , pet i t i oner s m us tdemonstr at e that “ther e i s a gr eat er - than- fi fty - per centchanc e of pe r s ecut i on” i n I ndones i a bas ed on one of the pr ot ect ed gr ounds . Senathi r aj ah v. I N S, 157 F. 3d 210, 215 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ; s ee a l s o 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 3 1 (b)(3 )(C ). F o r reli ef u n d er the C A T , N g o m u st de m o n str ate tha t i t i s m o re l i k e l yth a n n o tth a th e wo u l d b e t o r tu r e d i f r e mo v e d t o I n d o n e s i a . S e e 8 C. F . R. § 2 0 8 .1 6 (c )(2 ). T h e a c ts o f to rtu re m u st b e in f

licte d “ b yo r a t th e in stig a tio n o f o r w ith the cons entoracqui es cenc e of a publ i c off i ci al orotherper s on act i ng i n an off i ci al ca p ac ity . ” 8 C . F . R . § 1 2 0 8 . 1 8 (a)(1). 1

N go ar gues thatthe I J over l ooked cr i t i cal evi dence byconcl udi ng thathe fai l ed t o es t abl i s h pas tper s ecut i on and fe arof futur e per s ecut i on. Speci fi cal l y , N go cl ai m s thathe has demonstr at ed el i gi bi l i tyforw i thhol di ng of r emoval bas ed on a g g re g a te d in c id e n ts o f p a s t m is tr e a tm e n t in In d o n e s ia . N g o tes tifie d th a t d u rin g th e rio ts o f 1 9 9 8 , an o rg a n iza tio n o f e x tre m istsT h e o n lyin sta n c e in w h ich N g o im p lica tes th e G o v e rn m e n t’s in v o lv e m e n t is w ith 2 r egar d t o the di s cr i m i nat i on he fa ced w hen i tr efus ed t o i s s ue hi m cert ai n r eques t ed d o c u m e n ts . S u c h a c ts d o n o t c o n s titu te p e rs e c u tio n o r t o rt u re . 5 c o m p ri s e d p ri m a ri ly o f

n a tiv e M u s lim s b u rn e d d o w n th e C h ri s tia n c h u rc h h e a tte n d e d . N go al s o w i tnes s ed nat i ve M us l i m s burni ng dow n the homes of Chi nes e C hr i s t i ans near hi s hom e i n J akart a. N go t es t i fi ed t o a code thatw as us ed t o i nt i m i dat e and thr eat en C hri st i ans, i n w hich r ed an d y el l ow color i ng s w ere pai nted on the ho m es of C hinese C hr i s t i ans . R ed col or i ng on the home si gni fi ed thatC hr i s t i ans l i ved i n the home and s houl d be ki l l ed. A C hr i s t i an home w i th y el l ow col or i ng i ndi cat ed a f emal e C hr i s t i an r es i ded i n t he home and s houl d be r aped. N go s t at ed thathe w as aff ect ed bythes e ac t i ons b e c a u s e h e h a d a f

e m a le d a u g h te r a n d y e llo w c o lo ri n g w a s p la c e d o n h is h o u s e . N go fur thert es t i fi ed that , w hen he l i ved i n I ndones i a he w as oft en t ar get ed w hi l e dr i vi ng hi s car . D ur i ng one i nci dent , uni dent i fi ed as s ai l ant s i n a truck thr ew s t ones athi s car . I n anotheri nci dent , as s ai l ant s “hi t ” N go w hi l e he w as s t opped ata tr aff i c l i ght and hi s ey egl as s es w er e br oken. ( A . R . at72. ) I n addi t i on t o the phy s i cal i nci dent s , N go tes tifie d th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t d isc rim in a ted a g a in st h im b yre f u sin g to p ro v id e h im w ith d o c u m e n ts b e c a u s e o f

h is C h ri s tia n re lig io n . N go’ s cl ai m s of pas tper s ecut i on m us tfai l beca us e he ha s nots how n that the i nci dent s he des cr i bes w er e comm i t t ed bythe governm entorbyfor ces the g o v e rn m e n t is u n a b le o r u n w illin g to c o n tr o l. S e e V a ld iv ie z o -G a ld a m e z v . A tt’ yG e n ., 2W hi l e the C our ti n V al di vi ezo- G al damez w as r efe rr i ng t o per s ecut i on i n the cont ext 3 of an a s y l um cl ai m , the s ame subs t ant i ve cr i t er i a appl yt o det erm i ni ng per s ecut i on for p u rpo ses o f w ith h o lding o f re m o v al. W ak k aryv . H o lder, 55 8 F . 3 d 1 0 4 9 , 1 0 5 3 (9th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). 6 5 0 2 F . 3 d 2 8 5 , 2 8 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) (cit ati o n an d interna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). 3 Fur ther , he has notdemonstr at ed thatthe i nci dent s he expe r i ence d w er e mot i vat ed byan ant i - C hr i s t i an orant i - C hi nes e ani m us . See 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) ( r equi r i ng that per s ecut i on be “on a ccountof” a pet i t i oner ’ s r el i gi on orethni ci ty ) ; s ee a l s o L i e v. A s hcr oft , 396 F. 3d 530, 535 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . Fi nal l y , al though the i nci dent s N go des cr i bes w er e i ndeed unf

or tunat e, theyar e notthe type of ha r m r ecogni zed a s cons t i tut i ng per s ecut i on underourpr ece dent . See Fat i n v. I N S, 12 F. 3d 1233, 1240 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( defi ni ng per s ecut i on as “thr eat s t o l i fe, confi nement , t or tur e, and ec onom i c r es tr i ct i ons so sev ere that theyco n sti tute a thre at t o li fe o r free d o m . ”).

T he B oar d’ s r ej ect i on of N go’ s cl ai m t o w i thhol di ng of r emoval bas ed on fea rof futur e per s ecut i on i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence beca us e he ha d not pr es ent ed evi dence of hi s ow n per s ecut i on, ora patt ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on of ethni c C hi nes e orC hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a. See W ong v. A t t ’ yG en. , 539 F. 3d 225, 232 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . I n or dert o s how a w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on the appl i cant m us ts how a w el l founded s ubj ect i ve fe ar , “s uppor t ed byobj ect i ve evi dence that p erse cu ti o n is a reas o n ab le po ssibil ity . ” C h an g v . IN S , 1 1 9 F . 3 d 1 0 5 5 , 1 0 6 6 (3d C ir . 1997) . T he obj ect i ve pr ong i s s at i s fi ed ei therbys how i ng thatthe appl i cantw oul d beN go r el i es on Sael v. A s hcr oft , 386 F. 3d 922 ( 9th C i r . 2004) , forthe pr opos i t i on t hat 4 “t he m ore ser i ou s and w i despread the threatt o the group i n g eneral , the les s i ndi vi dual i zed the thr eatof per s ecut i on needs t o be. ” Sael , 386 F. 3d at925 ( i nt ernal q u o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n s o m itted). T h is r ea so n ing is pa rto f th e N inth C ir cu it ’s “di s favor ed gr oup” r at i onal e w hi ch w e have decl i ned t o fol l ow . See Li e v. A s hcr oft , 396 F .3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 8 n .4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 7 i ndi vi dual l ys i ngl ed outforper s ecut i on, orthat“ ‘ ther e i s a patt ern orpr act i ce i n hi s or hercountryof nat i onal i ty. . . of per s ecut i on of a gr oup of per s ons s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed t o t he appl i canton acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on. ’ ” Sukw anputr a v. G onzal es , 434 F. 3d 627, 637 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng 8 C . F. R . § 208. 13( b) ( 2) ( i i i ) ( A ) ) . N go pr ovi des no evi dence t o r efut e the fi ndi ng thatthe r ecor d r efl ect s s t eps bythe I ndones i an governm entt o contr ol and di ffus e vi ol ence agai ns tC hr i s t i ans l i ke N go. ( A . R . at51- 53. ) . T hus , N go has fai l ed t o es t abl i s h ei ther 4 p a s t o r a c le a r p ro b a b ility o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n b a s e d o n o n e o f th e p ro te c te d g ro u n d s . S e e IN S v . S te v ic , 4 6 7 U .S . 4 0 7 , 4 3 0 (1 9 8 4 ); s e e a ls o 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 6 (b ).

T h e B o a rd ’s re

je c tio n o f

N g o ’s C A T c la im a ls o f in d s s u b s ta n tia l s u p p o rt . N go has notpr es ent ed anyevi dence thatupon hi s r eturn t o I ndones i a he w oul d be to rtu re d b yth e g o v e rn m e n t o r th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t w o u ld a c q u ies c e in a n yto rtu re o f h im b ythir d p arti es. T h u s, N g o is no t el igible f o r pro tecti o n u n d er the C A T . P ierre v. A tt ’y G e n ., 5 2 8 F .3 d 1 8 0 , 1 9 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( e n b a n c ).

Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l denyN go’ s pet i t i on.