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 4-25-2006 

# S ukamt o 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 . 05-2971

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 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
" S ukamt o v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1224. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1224H on. Paul R . M i chel , C hi ef J udge of the U ni t ed St at es * C our tof A ppeal s forthe Feder al C i r cui t , s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL U N I TED STA TES C O U RT O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 05- 2971

HE RY S UKAMTO, 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 P eti ti o n fo r R ev iew o f a n O rde r o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( I N S N o. A 96- 264- 094)

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

A pr i l 18, 2006 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , A M B R O , and M I C H E L , C i r cui tJ udges * ( Fi l ed: A pr i l 25, 2006 )

OP I NI ON2

M I C H E L , C hi ef J udge. T h is is a p e ti ti o n f

o r re v iew o f

a d e c isio n o f

th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls deny i ng an appl i cat i on foras y l um and w i thhol di ng of r emoval . W e denythe pet i t i on. I H erySukam t o i s an ethni c C hi nes e, a pr act i ci ng C hr i s t i an, and a c i t i zen of I ndones i a. M r . Sukam t o ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es on a F1 s tudentvi s a on N ovember22, 2000, butdeci ded nott o enr ol l atthe des i gnat ed uni ver s i ty , the U ni ver s i tyof H ous t on, a n d re m a in e d in th e U n ited S tate s illeg a lly . T w o -a n d -a -h a lf y e a rs la ter , M r. S u k a m to
w ish e d to e n ro ll i n sc h o o l, bu t w a s in f o rm e d b ya u n iv e rsitya d m iss io n s o f f icia l th a t, beca us e of hi s i m m i gr at i on s t atus , he coul d notatt end s chool i n the U ni t ed St at es w i thout f irst re tu rn in g to In d o n e sia . In ste a d , o n M a rc h 2 4 , 2 0 0 3 , M r. S u k a m to a f f irm a tiv e ly
a p p lie d f o r a s y lu m a n d w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l. M r . Sukam t o s t at ed i n hi s as y l um appl i cat i on thathe s oughtw i thhol di ng bas ed on hi s r ace , r el i gi on, and mem ber s hi p i n a part i cul argr oup. H e i ndi cat ed i n hi s as y l um appl i cat i on thathe had be en harm ed i n the pas tand thathe fe ar ed bei ng harm ed and
su b jected to torture if h e w as to return to In d o n esia. In an ac co m p an y ing af fid av it , M r. S u k a m to sta ted th a t b e c a u se h e is o f C h in e se d e sc e n t, he is a m in o rityin In d o n e sia a n d is “l abel ed as ‘ non- nat i ve’ or[a] ‘ s econd- cl as s ci t i zen[ ] . ” Forexampl e, M r . Sukam t o s t at ed th a t h e is f

re q u e n tlya sk e d to p ro v e h is c iti z e n sh ip sta tu s e v e n th o u g h h e w a s b o rn in In d o n e sia . A s s p e c if

ic a c ts o f p a st h a rm , M r. S u k a m to re f e re n c e d a lo o tin g o f

h is3

g ra n d f a th e r’s sto re a n d b e a tin g su f f e re d b yh is g ra n d f

a th e r d u rin g In d o n e sia n rio ts in 1 9 6 5 , a lle g e d ly w itn e s s e d b yh is m o th e r. H e re c o u n te d th a t, w h ile in h ig h s c h o o l, a M u s l i m t e a c h e ro n c e q u e s t i o n e d h i m p u b l i c l y a n d ru d e l y a b o u tC h r i s t i a n i ty. H e r eca l l ed thathi s M us l i m cl as s m at es s t ol e hi s s t at i onery , hat , and s chool t i e, and ca l l ed hi m names on a dai l ybas i s . H e s t at ed thaton one occ as i on, w hen he burned hi s m oneyr atherthan g iv in g it to a M u s lim c la s s m a te , h e w a s b e a te n in th e s to m a c h . M r. S u k am to also claim ed three m o re rec en t i n cide n ts of h arm . F ir st, M r. Sukam t o s t at ed thati n Sept ember1996, the gat e t o hi s par ent s ’ hom e w as damaged by tw o gr oups fi ght i ng ata nea rbypol i t i cal gather i ng, and s ur m i s es thathi s fami l yw as t ar get ed bec aus e theyar e of Chi nes e ethni ci ty . Second, he r ecount ed thatthe nei ghborhood chi ef thr eat ened hi m and hi s uncl e w i th a “l ar ge s aber ” and a ccus ed the Sukam t o fami l yof cr eat i ng noi s e di s turbance s byvi r tue of the “c r acke r ” bus i nes s thatt he fam i l yop erat ed o ut of theirho m e. T hir d, M r. S uk am t o suspec t s that hi s parent s’ plum bing sy st em w as dam aged i n July20 00 byneighbo rhood M usl i m s, w ho al so al l egedl ys t ol e w at erfr om them duri ng the “drys eas on”, butconce des thathe l acks
e v i d e n c e t o p r o v e th i s c l a i m. A fter interv iew ing M r. S u k am to, an a sy lum o ff icer ref erred M r. S u k am to’s appl i cat i on t o t he I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) . O n M ay8, 2003, the form erI m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce ( now partof the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i ty , s ee H o m elan d S ec u ri tyA ct of 2 0 0 2 , P u b . L . N o . 1 0 7 -29 6 , 1 1 6 S tat . 2 1 3 5 (N o v . 2 5 , 2 0 0 2 )),4

i s s ued a N ot i ce t o A ppearcomm enci ng r emoval pr ocee di ngs pur s uantt o Sect i on 2 3 7 (a )( 1 )( B ) o f

th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A c t ( “ IN A ” ). A tthe M as t erC al endarH ear i ng on J une 19, 2003, M r . Sukam t o admi t t ed thathe had ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es on a F1 vi s a, had notenr ol l ed i n s chool , and had r emai ned i n the U ni t ed St at es i l l egal l y , and conc eded r emovabi l i tyunderthe I N A . H e w as r el eas ed p en d ing an asy lum h ea ri n g . F o ll o w ing h is asy lum h ea ri n g o n Jan u ary7 , 2 0 0 4 , the IJ i s s ued an or al deci s i on deny i ng M r . Sukam t o’ s appl i cat i ons foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of
re m o v a l, a n d w ith h o ld in g u n d e r t h e U n ite d N a tio n s C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rt u re . T he I J found thatM r . Sukam t o fai l ed t o fi l e foras y l um w i thi n the one y earper i od pr es cr i bed by8 U . S. C . § 1158( a) ( 2) ( D ) and thatthe exc us e off er ed byM r . Sukam t o, t hat he r el i ed on mi s i nform at i on fr om hi s fr i ends , di d notcons t i tut e an “ extr aor di naryr eas on” j us t i fy i ng w ai verof the dea dl i ne. T he I J al s o found thatM r . Sukam t o w as nei ther
su b jected to p erse cu ti o n n o r ha d a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f p erse cu ti o n . R athe r, the IJ
c o n c lu d e d th a t M r. S u k a m to d e p a rte d f ro m In d o n e sia to p u rsu e e d u c a tio n a l an d e c o n o m ic
o p p o rtu n iti e s in th e U n ited S tate s. T h e IJ g ra n ted M r. S u k a m to v o lu n tar yd e p a rtu re u n til M ar ch 8, 2004, w i th an al t ernat e or derof r emoval t o I ndones i a. M r. S u k a m to tim e lya p p e a led th e d e c isio n to th e B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (“B IA ”). O n M ay2 6 , 2 0 0 5 , the B IA issue d a p er c u ri am o rde r dism issi n g M r. S u k am to’s ap p ea l and “a d o p ted a n d af firm ed ” the IJ’s on -th e-rec o rd o ral de cisi o n . T h e B IA
a c k n o w led g e d th a t M r. S u k a m to su f f e re d so m e d isc rim in a tio n a n d h a ra ss m e n t in5

I ndones i a, buthel d t hatthes e tw o fac t or s al one do notcons t i tut e “pe r s ecut i on” w i thi n t he
m eani ng of the I N A . B eca us e M r . Sukam t o fai l ed t o pos tthe vol unt arydepartur e bond
or der ed bythe I J , the B I A vaca t ed the gr antof vol unt arydepartur e. M r . S u k a m t o t i m e l y p e t i t i o n e d t o th i s c o u r t . B e c a u s e M r . S u k a m t o r a i s e s o n l y a fa ctua l cha ll en g e to th e B IA d eterm ination that there w ere n o t extrao rdin ary ci rcum st ances w arr anti ng w ai ver of the one y ear t i m e l i m i t at i on for asy l um app l i cat i on s, w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on overthatpor t i on of hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew . See Sukw anputr a v. G o n z a le s , 4 3 4 F .3 d 6 2 7 , 6 3 3 -3 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). U n d e r S e c tio n 2 4 2 (a ) o f th e IN A , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a ), h o w e v e r, w e d o h a v e ju risd ictio n o v e r th e w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l. II T o s u c c e s s f

u lly p e titio n f

o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l, a n a lien m u st " sh o w th a t if
r eturned t o hi s countr y , i ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthatthe al i en' s l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened on a ccountof 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 g ro u p , o r p o litic a l o p in io n ." A m a n f i v . A s h c ro f

t, 3 2 8 F .3 d 7 1 9 , 7 2 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). Wh e r e th e BI A i s s u e s a n o r d e ro n th e me r i t s r a th e rth a n a s u mm a rya f f i r ma n c e , we rev iew the d ec isi o n o f th e B IA , n o t th e IJ. G ao v . A sh cro ft, 2 9 9 F . 3 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 1 (3d C ir . 20 02 ). H ere, becau se the B IA “ado pted and affirm ed” the fi nd i ng s of t he IJ, w e al so r evi ew the fi ndi ngs of the I J as i ncorpor at ed byr efe r ence i nt o the B I A deci s i on. I d. Pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ( B ) , “admi ni s tr at i ve fi ndi ngs of fa ctar e conc l us i ve u n le s s a n yre a s o n a b le a d ju d ic a to r w o u ld b e c o m p e lle d to c o n c lu d e to th e c o n tr a ry.”6

I n thi s pet i t i on, M r . Sukam t o ar gues thata r eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude thathe w as s ubj ect ed t o per s ecut i on and thathe demonstr at ed a
c l e a rp r o b a b i l i tyth a th e w o u l d f a c e p e r s e c u t i o n o rt o r tu r e u p o n r e tu rn t o I n d o n e s i a . We di s agr ee. T he I J ci t ed s peci fi c, cogentr eas ons forconcl udi ng thatM r . Sukam t o w as nei thers ubj ect ed t o per s ecut i on norhad a w el l
- founded f earof per s ecut i on ort or tur e, and
re s p o n d e d th o ro u g h ly to e a c h o f M r. S u k a m to ’s c la im s . T he I J concl uded thatM r . Sukam t o’ s true mot i ve forcomi ng t o the U ni t ed St at es w as “ to p u rsue ed u ca ti o n al an d ec o n o m ic op p o rtu n it ies”, cit ing as su p p o rtM r. S u k am to’s F 1 v isa sta tu s u p o n a d m iss io n a n d h is te stim o n yth a t h e c a m e to th e U n ited S tate s to att end s chool , butdeci ded one w eek a ft erarr i vi ng thathi s fami l yw oul d be bett ers erved byfi nanci al as s i s t ance he coul d pr ovi de thr ough empl oym enther e. T h e IJ a d d iti o n a lly ci t ed M r . Sukam t o’ s t es t i m onythathe bega n w or ki ng one mont h aft erhi s arr i val i n the U n ited S tate s a n d th a t h e a p p lied f o r a sy lu m o n lya f

ter lea rn in g f

ro m a u n iv e rsity
a d m iss io n s o f

f icia l th a t, be c a u se o f

h is im m ig ra tio n sta tu s, h e c o u ld n o t atte n d sc h o o l in the U ni t ed St at es w i thoutfi r s tr eturni ng t o I ndones i a, w hi ch he c oul d notaff or d t o do. T h e IJ f o u n d th a t M r. S u k a m to w a s u n lik e lyto su f f e r h a rm u p o n re tu rn in g to In d o n e sia . T h e IJ e m p h a siz e d M r. S u k a m to ’s te stim o n yth a t h is m o th e r w ish e d f o r h im to return to In d o n esia a n d h is i n ab il ityto ex p lai n “w h ya m o ther w o u ld w ish a so n to return h o m e if h e f

ac ed the likeliho o d o f p erse cu ti o n . ” T h e IJ c o n side red M r. S u k am to’s t es t i m onyof pas tdi s cr i m i nat i on and har as s m ent , butcat egor i zed a s “no more than7

s pecul at i on” M r . Sukam t o’ s t es t i m onythathe fe ar ed thathi s par ent s ’ hom e w oul d s uffe r p ro p e rtyd a m a g e d u rin g a n u p c o m in g p o lit ica l ele c tio n . T h e IJ n o ted th a t co n d iti o n s in I ndones i a have notw or s ened f orper s ons i n M r . Sukam t o’ s s t atus , and ci t ed the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof St at e’ s I nt ernat i onal R el i gi ous Fr eedom R eportforI ndones i a for 2002, w hi ch i n fac ts how s i m pr oved i nt er - ethni c and i nt er - r el i gi ous r el at i ons betw een C h ines e, C h ri sti an s, an d n ati v e M u sli m s in In d o n esia. T h e B IA ac k n o w ledg ed that M r. S u k a m to h a d su f

f e re d so m e d isc rim in a tio n a n d h a ra ss m e n t in In d o n e sia , b u t co rre c tly hel d thatthes e tw o fac t or s al one do notcons t i tut e “pe r s ecut i on” w i thi n the meani ng of the I N A . B as ed on the I J ’ s fi ndi ngs , the B I A corr ect l yhel d thatM r . Sukam t o “w as not d e tain e d , h a rm e d , o r th re a ten e d b yth e g o v e rn m e n t, or b yp e rso n s a g o v e rn m e n t is
unw i l l i ng orunabl e t o contr ol , on acc ountof a pr ot ect ed gr ound” and c orr ect l yconcl uded th a t M r. S u k a m to “ f

a ile d to s h o w th a t h e m o re lik e ly th a n n o t w o u ld b e to rt u re d .” B e c a u se M r. S u k a m to h a s n o t p o in ted to e v id e n c e th a t w o u ld c o m p e l a r e a so n a b le adj udi cat ort o concl ude thathe w as s ubj ect ed t o per s ecut i on, and has notdemonstr at ed a cl earpr obabi l i tythathe w oul d fac e per s ecut i on ort or tur e upon r eturn t o I ndones i a, the p e titio n f o r r e v ie w is d e n ie d .