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 Third C ir c uit 1-11-2008 

# K u swa di v . Atty Ge n U SA P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-2668

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re 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 Third C irc 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 by 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 more 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 " K us wa d i v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1765. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008/1765NOT 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- 2668 H E L E IA N A K U S W A D I; S OE P E NI S UHADA ,

P eti ti o n ers 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 T h e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on orabl e D on al d V . F erl i se ( N os . A 96- 257- 860 /A 96- 257- 861) Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember9, 2007 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, A M B R O , and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J anuary11, 2008)

OP I NI ON A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge T hi s cas e i nvol ves H el ei ana K us w adi and Soepeni Suhada, a mar r i ed coupl e, w ho a re n a tiv e s a n d c iti z e n s o f In d o n e sia , tho u g h th e ir a n c e stryis C h in e se . R e jec tin g th e ir2

cl ai m foras y l um , an I m m i gr at i on J udge or der ed both of them re m oved fr om the U ni t ed St at es . K us w adi and Suhada pe t i t i oned ourC our tforr evi ew , s peci fy i ng K us w adi as l ead pet i t i onerand cons ol i dat i ng Suhada’ s cas e as a der i vat i ve cl ai m . W e denythei rpet i t i on. K u s w a d i a n d S u h a d a p r e v i o u s l y l i v e d i n J a k a r t a , w h e r e K u s w a d i r a n a g r o c e rys uppl ybus i nes s i n connec t i on w i th hers i s t er ’ s s uperm arketbus i nes s . She al l eges that f o u r in c id e n ts o f

p a st p e rse c u tio n g iv e rise to a w e ll-fo u n d e d f e a r o f p e rse c u tio n sh o u ld sh e re tu rn to In d o n e sia . F irst, rio ter s d e stro y e d h e r sis ter ’s s u p e rm a rk e ts, a n d th e su p p ly b u sine ss’s inv en toryw ith them , in 1 9 9 8 . S ec o n d , a b o m b ex p lod ed o u tsi d e h er f am il y ’s R om an C athol i c chur ch on C hr i s t m as E ve of 2000. T hi r d, fol l ow i ng an anonym ous phone ca l l , unknow n as s ai l ant s s hotand w ounded hers i s t eri n February2001. Four th, on a n u n sp e c if

ied d a te, a d ista n t re lativ e o f h e rs h a d to d o d g e sto n e s th ro w n a t h is c a r w h ile dr i vi ng. In M a y2 0 0 1 , S u h a d a e n ter e d th e U n ited S tate s; K u sw a d i jo in e d h e r h u sb a n d in O ct ober2002. K us w adi t i m el yappl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and prot ect i on un der the C on ven t i on A gainstT orture ( “C A T ”), w i th h er husban d as a der i vat i ve appl i cant . ( Suhada di d notfi l e a s epar at e appl i cat i on. ) I n A pr i l 2003, the D ep artm en t of

H o m elan d S ec u ri tyinit iat ed rem o v al pro ce ed ing s ag ains t K u sw ad i. A n IJ d e n ied h e r c laim s a t a h e a rin g in Ja n u a ry2 0 0 5 . T h e B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls a f f i r me d wi th o u to p i n i o n , a n d Ku s wa d i f i l e d a t i me l yp e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 1) . B eca us e the B I A aff i r m ed theW e t ake no not i ce of the addi t i onal aff

adavi tatt ache d t o K us w adi ’ s openi ng 1 b ri e f , w h ic h is n o t p a rto f

th e a d m in is tr a tiv e re c o rd . See 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(4 )(A ).

3 IJ ’s o rd e r w ith o u t o p in io n , w e re v ie w h is o rd e r. P ar t yka v . A t t ’

y G en. , 417 F. 3d 408, 411 (3d C i r. 20 05 ). U nd er our s t and ard of revi ew , w e m ustup ho l d the I J’ s fi nd i ng s “unles s the evi dence notonl ys uppor t s a contr aryconcl us i on, butcompel s i t . ” A b d ille v . A sh c ro ft , 242 F. 3d 477, 483–84 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( ci t i ng I N S v. E l i as - Zacar i as , 502 U . S. 478, 481 & n . 1 ). T o s ucce ed on heras y l um cl ai m , K us w adi m us tes t abl i s h thats he i s “unabl e or unw i l l i ng” t o r eturn t o I ndones i a “be caus e of pe r s ecut i on ora w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on on 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. ” 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) . “A s how i ng of pas tper s ecut i on gi ves r i s e t o a r ebutt abl e pr es um pt i on of a w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on. ” L ie v . A sh c ro ft , 396 F. 3d 530, 535 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( ci t i ng 8 C . F. R . § 1208. 13( b) ( 1) ) . W i thout th a t p re s u m p tio n , K u s w a d i m u s t d e m o n s tr a te b o th a s u b je c tiv e f e a r o f p e rs e c u tio n , s ee L ie , 3 9 6 F .3 d a t 5 3 5 , a n d a n o b je c tiv e ly re a s o n a b le p o s s ib ility o f p e rs e c u tio n , s ee Zubeda v . A sh c ro ft , 3 3 3 F . 3 d 4 6 3 , 4 6 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). T he I J found K us w adi ’ s t es t i m onycr edi bl e, w hi ch s uppor t s hercl ai m of s ubj ect i ve f e a r. B u t su b sta n tial e v id e n c e su p p o rts th e IJ’ s c o n c lu sio n th a t th e f o u r in c id e n ts K u sw a d i d e sc rib e d d o n o t es tab lish th a t sh e , in p a rticu lar , w a s p e rse c u ted in th e p a st. 1 K us w adi l os tpr opertybutdi d notper s onal l yexper i ence bodi l yharm orl os e herfr eedomK us w adi ’ s s i tuat i on does notr i s e t o the l evel of ec onom i c depr i vat i on 2 exper i ence d bythe pet i t i oneri n Li v. A t t or ney G ener al . 4 0 0 F . 3 d 1 5 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 4 i n anyof the fouri nci dent s t o w hi ch s he t es t i fi ed. ( W e al s o agr ee w i th the I J that 2 n o th in g in th e re c o rd d e m o n stra tes a re lig io u s o r e th n ic m o tiv a tio n f o r th e su p e rm a rk e t, sh o o ti n g , an d ston ing incid en ts. ) W ith this ba ck d rop , there is no p resu m p ti o n o f f u ture per s ecut i on. A s a n e th n ica llyC h in e se C a th o lic, K u sw a d i m ig h t f a c e c h a llen g in g c o n d iti o n s in I ndones i a. B uts he has nots how n thatcondi t i ons have c hanged s i nce ourdeci s i on i n L ie , w h ich h e ld th a t n o p a ttern o r p ra c tice o f p e rse c u tio n e x ists in In d o n e sia w ith re sp e c t to ethni cal l yC hi nes e C hr i s t i ans . 396 F. 3d at537–38. T hus , s he has notes t abl i s hed an obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e pos s i bi l i tyof futur e per s ecut i on. I n s um , s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the I J ’ s fi ndi ng thatK us w adi has not demonstr at ed a w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on on acc ountof a pr ot ect ed gr ound. Si nce w i thhol di ng of r emoval r equi r es demonstr at i ng a hi gherpr obabi l i tyof p e rs e c u tio n th a n a s y lu m , K u s w a d i’ s c la im o n th a t th e o ry m u s t a ls o f a il. J a n u s i a k v . I NS , 947 F. 2d 46, 47–48 ( 3d C i r . 1991) . Fi nal l y , w e agr ee w i th the I J thatnothi ng i n the rec o rd su g g ests that K u sw ad i i s m o re li k elythan n o t t o ex p erien ce tortu re u p o n h er return t o I ndones i a. F o rth e s e r e a s o n s , we d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.