NOT 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- 4458

___________ AL BE RT J . L . AWUY; M AR I NA DE BO RA S ONDAK H; HE RT Z L E R S AM UE L B. AWUY; J OS HUA T I M OT HY J . A. AWUY, 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 the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN os . A 97- 152- 691, 692, 693 & 694) I m m i gr at i on J udge: A nni e S. G ar cy

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

M ay19, 2010 B e f o re : M c K E E , C hi ef

Judge , HAR DI M AN a n d CO WEN C i r cui tJudges ( O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 1, 2010 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i oner s s eek r evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”)2

deny i ng thei rm ot i on t o r eopen. Forthe r eas ons thatfol l ow , w e w i l l denyi n partand d i s mi s s i n p a rtth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. Pet i t i oner s A l bertJ . L . A w uy( her ei naft er“A w uy ”) , hi s w i fe M ar i na D ebor ah S o n d a k h , a n d th e i rtwo c h i l d r e n , He rt z l e rS a mu e l B. Awu ya n d J o s h u a T i mo th yJ . A. A w u y , all n a tiv e s a n d c iti z e n s o f In d o n e sia , en ter e d th e U n ited S tate s o n tra v e l v isa s in 1995. I n 2003, theyaff i rm at i vel ys oughtas y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT ortur e ( “C A T ”) , bas ed on l ead r es pondentA w uy ’ s s t atus as a C hr i s t i an pas t or . T heyw er e pl ace d i nt o r emoval pr ocee di ngs and, on Sept ember14, 2 0 0 4 , the IJ d e ter m in e d p e tit io n e rs’ a sy lu m c laim to b e tim e -b a rre da n d d e n ied th e ir re m a in in g c la im s f

o r r e lie f w ith th e e x c e p tio n o f

th e irre q u e s t f

o r v o lu n ta ry d e p a rtu re . T he B I A aff

i rm ed the I J ’ s deci s i on on D ece m ber29, 2004. Pet i t i oner s di d nots eek f u rth e rr e v i e w a tth a tt i m e n o rd i d th e y d e p a rtth e c o u n try. O n M ay4, 2007, pet i t i oner s fi l ed a mot i on t o r eopen pur s uantt o 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2 in o rd e r to se e ka d

ju stm e n t o f

sta tu s a n d p ro tec tio n u n d e r th e C A T . P e tit io n e rs s o u g h t to su b m it th e f

o llo w in g “ n e w ” e v id e n c e : (i) a d d iti o n a l p ro o f o f th e ir re lig io u s s tatu s; (ii) A w u y ’s pe n d ing I-36 0 p eti ti o n to b e c lassifi ed as a sp ec ial im m igran t r eli g iou s w o rke r, f ile d o n A p ri l 2 , 2 0 0 7 ; a n d (i ii) p ro o f o f c h a n g e d c o u n tryc o n d itio n s in In d o n e s ia . Pet i t i oner s cl ai m ed thatthi s evi dence w as notavai l abl e atthe t i m e of thei rhear i ng. T hey furtheral l eged thatthei rr i ght s t o due pr oces s w er e vi ol at ed bythe i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of pr i orcouns el , both dur i ng the pr ocee di ngs befor e the I J and on appe al t o the B I A , and3

thatthi s i neff

ect i venes s pr ovi ded a s ubs t ant i ve bas i s forr eopeni ng. T he B I A deni ed pet i t i oner s ’ m ot i on on Sept ember4, 2007, concl udi ng that p e tit io n e rs’ e v id e n c e o f “ c h a n g e d c irc u m sta n c e s” in In d o n e sia w a s n o t m a ter ial a n d d id notes t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ent i t l ementt o r el i ef. W i th r es pectt o pet i t i oner s ’ cl ai m s of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , the B I A hel d, among ot herthi ngs , thatpet i t i oner s fai l ed to d e m o n stra te p re

ju d ice o r d u e d ili g e n c e . F in a lly , the B IA h e ldth a t p e tit io n e rs f a iled to demonstr at e anyexce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s s uffi ci entt o w arr antthe exe r ci s e of i t s l i m i t ed d iscreti o n to co n side r a m o ti o n to reo p en su a sp o n te pu rsua n t t o 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (a). We h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth i s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w p u r s u a n tt o 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 . We re v ie w th e B IA ’s d e n ia l o f a m o tio n to re o p e n f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . See Li u v. A t torney G en. , 5 5 5 F . 3 d 1 4 5 , 1 4 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). U n d er this st an d ard , w e w il l up h o ld the B IA ’s deci s i on unl es s i ti s “arbi tr ary , i rr at i onal , orcontr aryt o l aw . ” Se v o ia n v . A sh c ro ft , 290 F . 3 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). W e w il l aff irm the B IA ’s fa ctua l fi n d ing s if theyare s upport ed by“‘ r eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr obat i ve evi dence on the r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e. ’ ” Fi l

j a v. G onz ales , 447 F. 3d 241, 251 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng IN S v. E l i asZacar i as , 5 0 2 U . S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 0 (19 9 2 )). W e g en era ll ylack juri sd ict ion to rev iew the B IA ’s d e c isio n n o t to e x e rc ise its d isc re tio n to su a sp o n te c o n sid e r a n u n tim e lym o tio n to re o p e n . See Cruzv. A t torney G en. , 4 5 2 F .3 d 2 4 0 , 2 5 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). Pet i t i oner s ’ m ot i on t o r eopen w as cl ear l ynotfi l ed w i thi n the r equi s i t e ni nety - day p e ri o d . See 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 2) ( m ot i on t o r eopen mustbe fi l ed w i thi n 90 day s of4

e n tryo f f in a l ad m in istra tiv e o rd e r o f re m o v a l). H o w e v e r, 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )(3 )(ii) c a rv e s o u t an e x c e p tio n to th e tim e lim itatio n to p e rm it an a p p lica n t to a p p lyo r re a p p ly fo r asy lum o r w ith h o lding o f d ep o rt ati o n b ase d o n ev iden ce o f c h an g ed co u n try co n d it ion s if su ch ev iden ce is m aterial an d w as n o t prev iou slyav ail ab le. P eti ti o n ers s ubm i tt ed evi dence w hi ch theym ai nt ai n s at i s fi ed thi s s t andar d. T he B I A di s agr eed a nd hel d thatpet i t i oner s ’ m ot i on t o r eopen w as t i m e- barr ed. W e ca nnotconcl ude thatthe B I A abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n r eac hi ng thi s concl us i on. I n I N S v. A budu , 485 U . S. 94 ( 1988) , the Supr eme C ourts etforth thr ee ba s es on w hi ch the B I A m aydenya mot i on t o r eopen: Fi r s t , i tm ayhol d thatthe movanthas notes t abl i s hed a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e for the under l y i ng s ubs t ant i ve r el i ef s ought . . . . Second, the B I A m ayhol d that the movanthas noti ntr oduced pr evi ous l yunavai l abl e, m at er i al evi dence , o r, in a n a sy lu m a p p lica tio n c a se , tha t th e m o v a n t h a s n o t re a so n a b ly e x p lain e d h is f

a ilu re to a p p lyf

o r a sy lu m in iti a lly . . . . T h ird , in c a se s in w hi ch the ul t i m at e gr antof r el i ef i s di s cr et i onary( as y l um , s us pens i on of d ep o rt ati o n , an d ad

justm en t of

statu s, b u t no t w ith h o lding o f d ep o rt ati o n ), th e BI A ma yl e a p a h e a d , a s i twe r e , o v e rth e two th r e s h o l d c o n c e rn s ( p r i ma fac i e ca s e and ne w evi dence /r eas onabl e expl anat i on) , and s i m pl ydet erm i ne thateven i f theyw er e met , the movantw oul d notbe ent i t l ed t o the di s cr et i onarygr antof r el i ef. I d. a t 1 0 4 -0 5 . H e re , the B IA h e ldth a t n o t all o f th e e v id e n c e p re se n ted w a s p re v io u sly u n av ail ab le; that n o n e o f itw as m aterial ; and that itd id n o t dem o n str ate tha t petit ion ers themsel ves w er e more l i kel ythan nott o be t ortur ed, w er e atan i ndi vi dual i zed r i s k of p e rse c u tio n , o r th a t th e re w a s a p a ttern a n d p ra c tice o f p e rse c u tio n a g a in st C h ristia n s in In d o n e sia . (J.A . 3 6 .) W h ile a sig n if ica n t p o rtio n o f

th e e v id e n c e d o e s p o std a teForr el i ef unde rthe C A T , an appl i cantm us tpr ove thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthat 1 h e w o u ld b e to rtu re d if

re m o v e d to h is c o u n tryo f o ri g in . See 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 6 (c )( 2 ). “Tortur e i s an extr eme form of cruel and i nhum an tr eatm entand does noti ncl ude l es s er f o rm s o f c ru e l, i n h u m a n o r d e g ra d in g tre a tm e n t o r p u n ish m e n t th a t d o n o t am o u n t to to rtu re .” 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 8 (a )(2 ). T o sa tisf yth e re q u ire m e n ts o f

th e C A T , the a c t in q u e s tio n m u s t b e d o n e b yo r w ith th e a c q u ie s c e n c e o f a p u b lic o f

f ic ia l. See 8 C. F . R. § 1 2 0 8 .1 8 (a )(1 ); se e a lso Zu b e da v . A sh c ro ft , 3 3 3 F . 3 d 4 6 3 , 4 7 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). T o b e enti t l ed to w i thh oldi ng of rem ov al t o a spec i fi c cou ntry , an ap pli cant m ust 2 pr ove thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthathi s “l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened i n that countrybecaus e of [ hi s ] 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 lit ica l o p in io n .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 (b )(3 )(a ). T h e a p p lica n t ca n sa tisf yth is s ta n d a rd e ith e r b yd e m o n s tr a tin g p a s t p e rs e c u tio n o r a lik e lih o o d o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n . See 8 C . F. R . § 1208. 16( b) . A n appl i cantneed nots how thathe w oul d be s i ngl ed outfor per s ecut i on i n the futur e i f he c an demonstr at e “thati n thatcountryther e i s a patt ern or pr act i ce 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 the appl i cant ” and the a p p lic a n t is a m e m b e r o f s u c h a g ro u p . See 8 C . F . R . § 1 2 0 8 . 1 6 (b)(2 ).

5 pet i t i oner s ’ or i gi nal r emoval pr ocee di ngs , w e agr ee thati tdoes nots upporta cl ai m that p eti ti o n ers the m selv es w il l l ikelyb e su b ject t o tortu re w ith the g o v ern m en t’ s acqui es cenc e upon thei rr eturn t o I ndones i a. T her efor e, thi s addi t i onal evi dence i s not m at er i al t o pet i t i oner s ’ cl ai m and does notm ake outa pr i m a fa ci e ca s e forC A T r el i ef. 1 T o th e e x ten t p e tit io n e rs in ten d e d to in v o k e a w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l cla im p u rsu a n t to IN A § 2 4 1 (b)(3 )(A ), w e c o n clud e tha t sub stan ti al ev iden ce su p p o rt s the B IA ’s d eterm ination that the e v iden ce theyso u g h t t o su b m itd em o n str ated n eith er tha t th eyw ere l i kel yt o be s i ngl ed outforfutur e per s ecut i on northatther e i s a patt ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on agai ns tC hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a. 2 Pet i t i oner s s eem t o ar gue thatbecaus e thi s evi dence w as “new ” i tw as bydefi ni t i on

“ m a ter ial.” (P e tit io n e rs’ B r. 1 2 .) P e tit io n e rs a lso c laim th a t th e B IA f a iled to e v a lu a teT o the ext entpet i t i oner s ar gue thatthe evi dence s ubm i tt ed i n s upportof thei rm ot i on 3 to reo p en d em o n str ated a p ri m a f ac ie en ti tl em en t t o asy lum , w e d o n o t add ress ith ere . In thei ror i gi nal r emoval pr ocee di ngs , the I J hel d thatpet i t i oner s ’ as y l um cl ai m w as t i m ebarr ed and the B I A aff

i rm ed. Pet i t i oner s fai l ed t o s eek r evi ew of the B I A det erm i nat i on atthatt i m e and, i n anyevent , w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew s uch a de ci s i on. See 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (a )(3 ); T a rr a w a lly v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 3 8 F . 3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). 6 w h e th e r th e “ n e w ” e v id e n c e d e m o n s tr a te d ap ri m a f a c ie e n title m e n t to re lie f. (P eti ti o n ers’ B r. 1 3 -22 . ) W h il e p eti ti o n ers m ayd isag ree w ith the o u tcom e o f th e B IA ’s d e c isio n , the re is n o b a sis in th e re c o rd f o r th e ir a ss e rtio n th a t th e B IA f a iled to e v a lu a te th is c la im . (J .A . 3 6 -3 7 .)

3 W ith re sp e c t to th e ir in e f f e c tiv e n e ss c laim s, p e tit io n e rs a rg u e d in th e ir m o tio n to re o p e n th a t th e ir f

irst a tto rn e y , M s. P h ip p s, w h o re p re se n ted th e m b e f o re th e IJ, f

a iled to pr es ents uffi ci entevi dence of thei rr el i gi ous aff i l i at i on. ( J . A . 62- 63. ) T he B I A hel d that p e tit io n e rs w e re n o t p re ju d ice d b ya n ysu c h f

a ilu re , as th e ir re lig io u s a f f ili a tio n w a s n o t in ques t i on and ther efor e anys uch evi dence w oul d nothave a ffe ct ed the under l y i ng p roc ee d ing s. (J. A . 3 7 . ) P eti ti o n ers a lso m aintaine dthat M s. P h ipp s so u g h t vo lun tary d e p a rtu re o n th e ir b e h a lf a g a in st th e ir w ish e s a n d f a iled to a d v ise th e m o f

th e ir d u tyto d e p a rt. (J.A . 6 5 -6 6 .) T h e B IA h e ldth a t, i n w a iti n g o v e r tw o y e a rs b e f o re p u rsu in g th is cl ai m , pet i t i oner s fai l ed t o exer ci s e due di l i gence . ( J . A . 38. ) A ddi t i onal l y , the B I A not ed thatanyerr orbycouns el w as cur ed byboth the I J ’ s w arni ng and the B I A ’ s w r i tt en not i ce i n it s D ecem ber 200 5 o rder . (J . A . 37 . ) A tthe co nclusi on of thei r r em ov al proceed i ng s, the I J expl ai ned atl ength the pr oces s of vol unt arydepartur e and the i m pl i cat i ons for7

fai l i ng t o vol unt ar i l ydepart . ( J . A . 731- 35. ) Pet i t i oner s do notexpl ai n w hytheyw ai t ed u n til 2 0 0 7 to ra is e th e irc o n c e rn s re g a rd in g th e IJ ’s g ra n t o f v o lu n ta ry d e p a rtu re . A ddi t i onal l y , w e fi nd thei rr el i ance on R r anciv. A t torney G eneral , 5 4 0 F . 3 d 1 6 5 (3d C ir . 2008) , t o be unava i l i ng. I n R r anci , pet i t i onerw as a w i tnes s forthe U ni t ed St at es g o v e rn m e n t w h o s e lif

e w a s th re a te n e d b yth e p e rs o n a g a in s t w h o m h e te s tif ie d . See i d. at 168. W e hel d that , i n r ecomm endi ng vol unt arydepartur e, pet i t i oner ’ s couns el m ayhave e rre d in lig h t o f

th e se rio u sn e ss o f

th e th re a ts p e tit io n e r re c e iv e d a n d th e o v e ra ll c o n s is te n c ya n d p la u s ib ility o f h is s to ry. See i d. at175. T hes e fa ct s ar e noti n anyw ay anal ogous t o pet i t i oner s ’ s i tuat i on. Fur therm or e, as the A tt orneyG ener al not es , had p eti ti o n ers v o lun tari lyd ep arted , theyw o u ld n o t be s u b ject t o the tim e b ars o n re-en try as s oci at ed w i th r emoval and coul d have a w ai t ed adj udi cat i on of thei rvar i ous pet i t i ons a n d a p p lie d f

o r r e a d m is s io n a t a la te r t im e . See D ada v. Mukas ey , __U .S . __ , 1 2 8 S . C t. 2 3 0 7 , 2 3 1 4 (20 0 8 ). Pet i t i oner s al s o al l ege thattheyw er e pr ej udi ced bythe fa i l ur e of thei rs econd att orney , M r . M as ucci , t o fi l e an appeal br i ef. ( J . A . 63- 64. ) H ow ever , theydi d not s peci fyi n thei rm ot i on t o r eopen w hathe w oul d have a r gued t o the B I A thatm i ghthave aff ect ed the out come of thei rappea l . N ot abl y , the B I A di d notdi s m i s s thei rappea l for fai l ur e t o fi l e a br i ef. ( J . A . 452. ) T hus , the B I A hel d thatpet i t i oner s di d nots uffe rT h e B IA also ad d resse d w h ethe r M r. M asu cc i w as in ef fe cti v e f o r fa il ing to f

il e a n I- 4 3 6 0 p e tit io n f

o r a sp e c ial im m ig ra n t re lig io u s w o rk e r. B e f o re f ili n g th e ir m o tio n to reo p en , p eti ti o n ers init iat ed the p roc ess o f o b tai n ing su ch a c lassifi ca ti o n . (A . R . 1 3 4 -37 . ) I n deny i ng thei rm ot i on t o r eopen, the B I A hel d thatpet i t i oner s fai l ed t o demonstr at e a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tythatr el i ef w oul d have be en gr ant ed had he done s o, as the pet i t i on w o u ldh a v e b e e n f

iled w h ile th e a p p e a l w a s p e n d in g a n d p e tit io n e rs w o u ldn o t n e c e ss a rily hav e been able t o d em on strat e that a vi sa w as avai l able atthat t i m e. (A . R . 38 . ) B ecause pet i t i oner s fai l ed t o vol unt ar i l ydepartw i thi n the r equi r ed t i m e fr ame, the B I A expl ai ned th a t th e ya re n o lo n g e r e lig ib le f o r a n a d ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s . See 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 2 9 c (d )(1 )(B ). A s th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l n o tes , p e tit io n e rs h a v e n o t ad d re ss e d th is c la im in th e ira p p e a l b ri e f. A c c o rd in g ly, w e d e e m it w a iv e d . Se e L ie v . A sh c ro ft , 396 F . 3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 2 n . 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 8 pr ej udi ce a s a r es ul tof M r . M as ucci ’ s fai l ur e t o fi l e an appeal br i ef. ( J . A . 37. ) W e agr ee 4 w i th the B IA ’s dis po si t i on of p et i t i on ers ’ i neff ect i ve assi st ance o f cou nsel cl ai m s. F inally , p eti ti o n ers c lai m fo r th e f ir st t im e in th eir pe ti ti o n fo r rev iew that the IJ w as bi as ed and pr edi s pos ed aga i ns tthem. A s thi s cl ai m has notbeen e xhaus t ed, w e l ack ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w it. See Bonhom etr e v. G onz ales , 4 1 4 F .3 d 4 4 2 , 4 4 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). B as ed on the for egoi ng, w e w i l l denyi n partand di s m i s s i n partthe pet i t i on for r e v i e w.