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 5-18-2007 

# Liong 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 . 06-1870

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 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 ion g v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1088. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1088NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E 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- 1870

_______________ S UKAMATO M I L L I ON L I ONG, 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 e sp o n d e n t.

_______________ Pet i t i on forR evi ew of a Fi nal D eci s i on of the 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- 257- 479) Im m i grat i on Judg e D on al d V . F erl i se

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

M ay10, 2007 B e f o re : R E N D E L L , J O R D A N a n d A L D IS E R T , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed M ay18, 2007)

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________ J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge . Sukam at o M i l l i on L i ong, a ci t i zen of I ndones i a, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the fi nal or derof r emoval byt he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) deny i ng hi s appl i cat i on2

forw i thhol di ng of r emoval pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1231( b) ( 3) . Forthe r eas ons that fol l ow , w e w i l l denyt he pet i t i on. I. L i on g, a nati ve Indo nesi an o f C hinese descent , enter ed the U nit ed S t at es as a v isito r in F e b ru a ry2 0 0 1 . H e re m a in e d in th e U n ited S tate s a f ter th e e x p ira tio n o f

h is vi s i t ors t atus , and on February7, 2003, he appl i ed foras y l um . L i ong t her eaf t err ece i ved a not i ce t o appea ri n r emoval pr ocee di ngs . A thi s hear i ng befor e the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “ I J ” ) , L i o n g c o n c e d e d t h a th e w a s r e m o v a b l e , th a th i s a s yl u m a p p l i c a t i o n w a s u n t i m e l y, and thathe w as appl y i ng onl yforw i t hhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A g a in s t T o rt u re (“ C A T ” ). L io n g c o n ten d e d th a t h e f e a re d p e rse c u tio n in In d o n e sia b e c a u se h e is C a th o lic a n d e th n i c a l l yCh i n e s e . He p r e s e n t e d n o e v i d e n c e th a th e h a d e v e rb e e n p e r s e c u t e d . He tes tifie d th a t, w h ile h e w a s in In d o n e sia , h e d id n o t h a v e a n yp ro b lem s b e c a u se o f h is re lig io n o r e th n icity , alth o u g h th e re w e re so m e “ m in o r p ro b lem s” in h is n e ig h b o rh o o d in I ndones i a. H i s w i fe, chi l dr en, and s even s i bl i ngs r emai ni ng i n I ndones i a have cont i nued t o at t end chur ch. H e expl ai ned thathe w as afr ai d t o r eturn t o I ndones i a bec aus e “of t he exi s t ence of t err or i s t s , ” rum or s aboutM us l i m extr emi s t s , and chur ch cl os i ngs i n var i ous pl ace s i n I ndones i a. T he I J deni ed Li ong’ s appl i cat i ons forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef unde rt he C A T . A ft err evi ew i ng L i ong’ s t es t i m ony , the I J concl uded thatL i ong and hi s fami l yhadB eca us e Li ong di d notappea l t he I J ’ s deci s i on r egar di ng hi s C A T appl i cat i on, w e may 1 n o t r ev iew that d ec isi o n . 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (d)(1 ). 3 n ev er b ee n p erse cu ted a s a re su lto f th eir ethn ici tyo r reli g ion . R eg ard ing L ion g ’s t est i m on yabo ut church cl osi ng s, t he IJ not ed that , according t o thatt est i m on y , tho se c h u rc h e s w e re a n in e h o u r a u to m o b ile rid e a w a yf ro m w h e re L io n g liv e d . L io n g a n d h is fam i l yw ere notpreven t ed from at t end i ng chu rch. F i nall y , the IJ consi dered t he m ost r ece ntSt at e D epart m entr eport s r el at i ng t o r el i gi ous l ym ot i vat ed vi ol ence i n I ndones i a, b u t n o te d th a t th o s e in c id e n ts o c c u rr e d in p a rt s o f th e c o u n tr yf

a r f ro m w h e re L io n g liv e d . A ccor di ng t o t he I J , t her e w as no evi dence i n t he r ecor d t hatthe I ndones i an governm ent w as unw i l l i ng orunabl e t o pr ot ectC hr i s t i ans and ethni c C hi nes e. T hus , the I J concl uded thatL i ong had fa i l ed t o pr ove thatther e w as a cl earpr obabi l i t ythathe w oul d be per s ecut ed on hi s r etur n t o I ndones i a, and deni ed hi s appl i cat i ons forw i t hhol di ng of re m o v a l a n d re lie f

u n d e r t h e C A T . L io n g a p p e a le d to th e B IA , c h a lle n g in g o n ly th e d e n ia l o f w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. O n F eb rua ry9 , 2 0 0 6 , the B IA d ism issed L ion g ’s ap p ea l, co n clud ing that “[ t] h e re co rd s uppor t s the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s det erm i nat i on that[Li ong] fai l ed t o m eethi s bur den of pr ovi ng t hat , i f he i s r emoved t o I ndones i a, i ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthathe w i l l be per s ecut ed on ac countof hi s C hi nes e ethni ci t yorC athol i c r el i gi on. ” W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w th e B IA ’s f in a l d e c is io n p u rs u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1252( a) ( 1) . W her e, as her e, t he B I A defe r s t o t he I J ’ s det erm i nat i on, w e r evi ew the

14

d e c is io n o f

th e IJ . A b d u la i v. A sh c ro ft , 2 3 9 F . 3 d 5 4 2 , 5 4 9 n . 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). T h e IJ’s f a c tu a l d e te rm in a tio n s m u s t b e u p h e ld if s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e , IN S v. E l i asZacar i as , 502 U . S. 478, 481 ( 1992) , and “c an onl ybe r ever s ed i f the evi dence i s s uch that a r eas onabl e fa ct fi nderw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude otherw i s e. ” C havar r i a v. G onz al es , 4 4 6 F . 3 d 5 0 8 , 5 1 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). II. T o be ent i t l ed t o w i t hhol di ng of r emoval pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1231( b) ( 3) , L i ong m us tes t abl i s h t hatt her e i s a “c l earpr obabi l i t y ” thathe w i l l be per s ecut ed on ac countof a p ro te c te d g ro u n d o n h is re tu rn to In d o n e s ia . IN S v . S tev ic , 4 6 7 U .S . 4 0 7 , 4 2 4 (1 9 8 4 ). “The ques t i on undert hat[cl earpr obabi l i t y ] s t andar d i s w hetheri ti s m or e l i kel ythan not thatthe al i en w i l l be s ubj ectt o per s ecut i on. ” Id . L i ong m aym eetthi s bur den bys how i ng thati n I ndones i a ther e i s “a pa t t ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on of a gr oup of per s ons s im ila rl ys itu a te d ” to h im o n a c c o u n t o f a p ro te c te d g ro u n d . 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 6 (b )( 2 ). “[T] o cons t i tut e a ‘ patt ern orpr act i ce, ’ the per s ecut i on of the gr oup m us tbe s y s t emi c, pervas i ve, oror gani zed . . . [and mustbe] comm i t t ed bythe governm entorfor ces the governm enti s ei t herunabl e orunw i l l i ng t o contr ol . ” L ie v . A sh c ro ft , 396 F. 3d 530, 537 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). L io n g a rg u e s th a t th e IJ f a iled to c o n sid e r th e e v id e n c e o f re lig io u s in to ler a n c e in I ndones i a and thatt he evi dence , pr oper l ycons i der ed, demonstr at es a patt ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on i n I ndones i a on ac countof r el i gi on. L i ong poi nt s t o t he 2004 I nt ernat i onal5

R el i gi ous Fr eedom R epor tforI ndones i a pr epar ed bythe U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof St at e ( the “2004 Repor t ”) , w hi ch des cr i bes at t acks on chur ches and otheri nt err el i gi ous vi ol ence i n part s of I ndones i a. A ccor di ng t o t he r epor t , “[a ] l t hough the G overnm ent m a d e s ig n if

ic a n t e f f o rt s to re d u c e in te rr e lig io u s v io le n c e , s u c h v io le n c e o c c u rr e d . . . [and, ] [o] n s om e occ as i ons , t he G overnm entt ol er at ed the abus e of r el i gi ous fr eedom by p ri v ate g rou p s o r fa il ed to p u n ish p erp etrators. ” T h e S tat e D ep artm en t’ s 2 0 0 3 C o u n try R epor ton H um an R i ght s Pr act i ces forI ndones i a al s o i ndi cat es thatthe I ndones i an governm entatt i m es fai l ed t o pr ot ectthe funda m ent al r i ght s of m i nor i t ygr oups , i ncl udi ng r el i gi ous m i nor i t i es . A ccor di ng t o L i ong, thi s evi dence s how s thatther e i s a patt ern or pr act i ce of

per s ecut i on of C hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a. C o n tra ryto L io n g ’s a ss e rtio n , the re c o rd sh o w s th a t th e IJ d id c o n sid e r th e S tate D epart m entr eport s . T he I J concl uded thatthe vi ol ence w as nots uffi ci ent l yw i des pr ead o r c o n d u c te d w ith s u f

f ic ie n t g o v e rn m e n t in v o lv e m e n t to q u a lif ya s p e rs e c u tio n . A ccor di ng t o t he 2004 R epor t , t he w or s tof the i nt err el i gi ous fi ght i ng appea r ed t o have o c c u rr e d in p a rt ic u la r r e g io n s o f th e c o u n tr y , C e n tr a l S u la w e s i a n d th e M o lu c c a s . I m por t ant l y , “[s ] om e not abl e adva nces i n i nt err el i gi ous t ol er ance and coope r at i on occurr ed dur i ng t he per i od cover ed bythe [2004 Repor t ] . G overnm entoffi ci al s t ogether w i th M usl i m and C hri st i an co m m un i t yl eaders conti nu ed to w ork t og et her t o d i ffu se te n s io n s in c o n f

lic t a re a s , p a rt ic u la rl yin C e n tr a l S u la w e s i a n d th e M o lu c c a s .” Id . T hu s, w hi l e ther e i s evi dence of s om e i ns t ance s of governm entt ol er ance forr el i gi ous vi ol ence ,6

the 2004 R epor ts uppor t s t he conc l us i on thatthe I ndones i an governm enti s , on t he w hol e, try i ng t o pr eventi nt err el i gi ous confl i ct . T her efor e, w hi l e w e w oul d notgo s o faras t o s ay ther e i s no evi dence of pr obl ems i n I ndones i a w i t h t he pol i ci ng of ethni c and r el i gi ous vi ol ence , ther e i s s uppor tforthe I J ’ s ul t i m at e conc l us i on thatthe vi ol ence w as not s uffi ci ent l yw i des pr ead orconduct ed w i t h s uffi ci entgovernm enti nvol vementt o qual i fy a s p e rs e c u tio n . III . L io n g d o e s n o t cla im th a t h e a n d h is f a m ilyh a v e b e e n th e tar g e t o f p e rse c u tio n in I ndones i a. T hus , hi s fai l ur e t o demonstr at e a pa t t ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on m eans t hat he has fai l ed t o pr ove thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthathe w i l l be per s ecut ed on r etur ni ng t o I n d o n e s i a . We wi l l t h e r e f o r e d e n yh i s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w.