2008 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 4-30-2008 

# T jie 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 . 07-2721

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_2008

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 2008 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 " T jie v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1303. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1303NOT 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. 07- 2721

___________ HI EN TJ EN TJ I E, Pet i t i oner v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

___________________________ Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A N o. A 96 266 251) I m m i g r a t i o n J u d g e : H o n o r a b l e R o s a l i n d M a l l o y

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

A pr i l 16, 2008 B efor e: R E N D E L L , G R E E N B E R G and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed A pr i l 30, 2008 )

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ P E R C UR I AM H i en Tj en Tj i e pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a de ci s i on of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) di s m i s s i ng hi s appea l of the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) deci s i on deny i ng hi s appl i cat i ons foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on underthe2

Co n v e n t i o n Ag a i n s tT o r tu r e . We wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T j i e i s a nat i ve an d cit i zen o f Indo nesi a. H e cam e t o the U nit ed S t at es i n 1 99 9 as a vi s i t or . I n 2003, the I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce i s s ued a not i ce t o appea r char gi ng thatT

j i e w as s ubj ectt o r emoval beca us e he ha d s t ay ed her e l ongerthan perm i t t ed. T hr ough couns el , T j i e conc eded he w as r emovabl e as char ged. H e appl i ed for asy lum , w ith h o lding o f re m o v al, an d reli ef u n d er the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re. T h e IJ f o u n d T jie in e lig ib le f

o r a sy lu m b e c a u se h is a p p lica tio n w a s u n tim e ly , an d c o n sid e re d h is otherappl i cat i ons forr el i ef. A t h is h e a rin g , T

jie re lied o n th e a f

f id a v it h e h a d su b m itt e d in su p p o rt o f h is a p p lica tio n s. T

jie s tate d in th e a f

f id a v it th a t h e h a d su f

f e re d p e rse c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f h is C hi nes e ethni ci tyand C hr i s t i an r el i gi on. T j i e expl ai ned thathe w as a s hopkeepe ri n an area of predo m i nan t l yM usl i m shop keep ers of M adu res e et hn i ci ty , and that the M adu res e d id n o t l ike C h ines e C h ri sti an s. O n e sh o p k ee p er, w h o w as jea lou s o f Tji e’s sh o p ’s success, harass ed Tj i e con st antl yand t old cust om ers no tt o b uycl othes fr om “t he C hinese m a n .” A .R . a t 1 3 8 . T h e sh o p k e e p e r’s ill -w ill th e n a p p e a re d to su b sid e , an d sh e g a v e T jie a c a k e . T

jie w as bus yw i th cus t om er s and di d noteatthe ca ke, buthi s w i fe di d. A n hourl at er , s he beca m e veryi l l . T

j i e t ook hi s w i fe t o the hos pi t al , buts he di ed. T he doct ort ol d T j i e that s he w as poi s oned. T

j i e di d nothave the doct orper form an aut ops ybeca us e he di d not w anthi m t o cuthi s w i fe’ s body . A tT j i e’ s hear i ng, the I J as ked hi m w hyhe di d nothave3

the ca ke exa m i ned i f he be l i eved i tw as poi s onous . H e r epl i ed thathe had thr ow n the c a k e a w a yb e c a u se it w a s a ttrac tin g f lies . T jie a lso tes tifie d th a t th e d o c to r h a d to ld h im thathi s w i fe w as poi s oned bas ed on hers ym pt om s . W hen as ked i f the doct orm ade a ny not es , atfi r s tT

j i e s ai d y es , butthen r epl i ed thathe as ked the doct ornott o m ake not es b e c a u se h e w a s a f

ra id th e p o lice w o u ld in v e stig a te a n d th e sh o p k e e p e r’s f a m ilyw o u ld th re a te n h im . T

jie s u b m itte d a d e a th c e rt if ic a te , b u t it d id n o t r e f

le c t th e c a u s e o f

d e a th . T j i e furthers t at ed i n hi s aff i davi tthathe di d notr eportthe cr i m e t o the pol i ce beca us e no one w oul d have t es t i fi ed aga i ns tthe M us l i m s hopkeepe rorw oul d have he l ped a C hi nes e C hr i s t i an, and bec aus e M us l i m s w oul d have r et al i at ed aga i ns thi m . T j i e’ s w i fe di ed i n 1987. T

j i e s t at ed thathe cl os ed hi s s hop and coul d notconce ntr at e on anythi ng f o r th e n e x t six y e a rs. H e th e n w o rk e d f o r v a rio u s c o m p a n ies f

o r a b o u t se v e n y e a rs. Tjie s t a t e d th a th e c o u l d n o tb e a rth e v i o l e n c e o f th e M a y1 9 9 8 r i o t s a g a i n s tth e Ch i n e s e . He c a m e to th e U n ite d S ta te s in O c to b e r 1 9 9 9 . T j i e t es t i fi ed thathe i s afr ai d t o r eturn t o I ndones i a bec aus e he i s s t i l l tr aumat i zed byhi s w i fe’ s death, and bec aus e the M adur es e have cl os ed manychur ches and the M us l i m s have tr i ed t o ki dnap mi ni s t er s . Fi nal l y , T j i e t es t i fi ed thathe has tw el ve s i bl i ngs w ho , al on g w i th h i s m other , rem ai n in I nd on esi a. T j i e al so has t w o son s. O ne is a stu d e n t in Io w a , an d th e o th e r liv e s in C a n a d a . T jie h a s o n e b ro th e r liv in g h e re w h o is s e e k in g a s y lu m . T h e IJ d id n o t d o u b t th a t T jie is a w id o w e r, b u t f

o u n d th e e v id e n c e in su f f icie n t toT he B I A al s o agr eed w i th t he I J thatT j i e’ s as y l um appl i cat i on w as unt i m el y , and that 1 T jie d id n o t s h o w th a t h e w a s e lig ib le f o r r e lie f 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 . T h e se c o n c lu sio n s a re n o t at iss u e in th is a p p e a l. 4 di r ect l yconnec thi s w i fe’ s death t o the s hopkeepe rort o poi s oni ng. T he I J di d notbel i eve th a t th e d o c to r a g re e d n o t to p re p a re a re p o rt, an d f o u n d th a t T

jie’s tes tim o n yin th is re g a rd w e a k e n e d h is c laim . T h e IJ a lso n o ted th a t T jie d id n o t tes tifyth a t h e o r h is f a m ily h ad an yp rob lem s att en d ing ch u rch in In d o n esia, an d that h is tw elve sibli n g s, w h o are C h in e se a n d C h ristia n , li v e in In d o n e sia w ith o u t an yp ro b lem s. T h e IJ s tate d th a t T jie co u ld return to an are a w h ere the M ad u rese d o n o t l ive. A b sen t evid en ce o f Tji e’s w ife’s caus e of de ath, the I J found thatT j i e di d nots uffe rpas tper s ecut i on. T he I J al s o found no c le a r e v id e n c e th a t h e w o u ld b e p e rs e c u te d in th e f u tu re if h e re tu rn e d to In d o n e s ia . T he B I A di s m i s s ed Tj i e’ s appea l . T he B I A agr eed thatT j i e s ubm i t t ed i ns uffi ci ent evi dence t o s how thathi s w i fe’ s death w as a r es ul tof ea t i ng poi s oned ca ke, and thus c o n c lu d e d th a t h e f

a iled to e sta b lish a n e x u s b e tw e e n th e h a rm h e su f f e re d a n d h is ethn ici tyo r reli g ion . T h e B IA also rejected T ji e’s a rgu m en t on ap p ea l th at th e IJ i ncorr ect l yfound no patt ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on of C hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a, not i ng thatthe I J had conc l uded thatT j i e di d nots how a cl earpr obabi l i tyof futur e per s ecut i on gi ven thathe had no pr obl ems att endi ng chur ch and hi s fami l ys t i l l l i ved i n I ndones i a. 1 W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w th e B IA ’s d e c is io n p u rs u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a ). W e r evi ew the B I A ’ s fi ndi ngs under8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ( B ) , w hi ch pr ovi des that

“ a d m in istra tiv e f

in d in g s o f

f a c t ar e c o n c lu siv e u n les s a n yre a so n a b le a d ju d ica to r w o u ld5

be compel l ed t o concl ude t o the contr ary . ” W e have r ead thi s s t andar d t o r equi r e thatt he agenc ys uppor ti t s fi ndi ngs w i th s ubs t ant i al evi dence , orevi dence fr om w hi ch a re a s o n a b le f

a c t f in d e r c o u ld m a k e a d e te rm in a tio n b a s e d o n th e a d m in is tr a tiv e re c o rd . G ambashi dze v. A s hcr oft , 381 F. 3d 187, 191 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . I n or dert o es t abl i s h thathe w a s e n t i t l e d t o w i th h o l d i n g o f r e m o v a l , T

j i e w a s r e q u i r e d t o s h o w a c l e a rp r o b a b i l i ty – thati tw as m or e l i kel ythan not– thatupon hi s r eturn t o I ndones i a, he w oul d be p erse cu ted. Id. If T

ji e d em o n str ated p ast p erse cu ti o n , h e is p resu m ed to f ac e f u ture p e rs e c u tio n . Id . T j i e ar gues i n hi s br i ef thatthe B I A ’ s deci s i on i s nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evidence, and that the M usl i m shop keep er’ s pois on i ng of h i s w i fe co nst i tuted past per s ecut i on. T

j i e, how ever , does notaddr es s the B I A ’ s concl us i on thathe pr es ent ed i n s u f f i c i e n te v i d e n c e t o e s t a b l i s h h i s wi f e ’ s c a u s e o f

d e a th , a n d th u s f

a i l e d t o s h o w a nexus betw een the harm he s uffe r ed and hi s ethni ci tyorr el i gi on. B as ed on the evi dence di s cus s ed above , a r eas onabl e fa ctfi ndercoul d det erm i ne thatT j i e di d notes t abl i s h t hat th e sh o p k e e p e r p o iso n e d h is w if e o r th a t th e h a rm h e su f f e re d w a s o n a c c o u n t o f

h is e th n ic ity o r r e lig io n . T h e re c o rd d o e s n o t c o m p e l a f in d in g o f p a s t p e rs e c u tio n . T j i e al s o ar gues thathe fa ces a cl earpr obabi l i tyof futur e per s ecut i on. T j i e does notpoi ntt o anyevi dence i n the r ecor d i n s uppor tof hi s ar gum ent . I ns t ead, he cont ends thatther e i s a patt ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on of C hi nes e C hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a. T j i e, how ever , di d notpr es enta patt ern orpr act i ce c l ai m befor e the I J . H i s cl ai m forr el i ef6

f ro m re m o v a l w a s b a se d o n h is w if e ’s d e a th . S e e A .R . at 1 3 8 -4 1 . T h e B IA c o rre c tly r ej ect ed Tj i e’ s ar gum enton appea l thatthe I J err ed i n fi ndi ng no patt ern orpr act i ce of p e rse c u tio n b e c a u se th e IJ d id n o t m a k e su c h a f in d in g . W e a lso n o te th a t, co n tra ryto T j i e’ s cont ent i on thathe fa ces a cl earpr obabi l i tyof per s ecut i on i f he r eturns t o I ndones i a, T jie liv e d in In d o n e sia f

o r tw e lv e y e a rs a f

ter h is w if

e ’s d e a th w ith o u t in c id e n t. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.