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

8-20-2008 

# W ong v . Atty Ge n U SA

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-3539

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . 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 a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin
. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" W on g v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 583. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/583P 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- 3539

_____________
S I OE T J E N WONG,
Pet i t i oner

v. AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF TH E U N I TED STA TES,
R es pondent
O n R evi ew of a 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 ( A gencyN o. A 78- 688- 745) I m m i gr at i on J udge: C har l es M

. H oneym an

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

M ar ch 11, 2008

B e f o re : F U E N T E S , C H A G A R E S , an d A L D IS E R T , C irc u it

Judg es. ( Fi l ed: A ugus t20, 2008)
J os eph C

. H ohens t ei n, E s q. O rlo w , K a p lan & H o h e n ste in 620 C hes t nutSt r eet , Sui t e 656 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 C ouns el f orP et i t i oner2 D avi d V

. B ernal , E s q. L ance L

. J ol l ey , E s q. E r nes t o H

. M ol i na, E s q. J onathan Pot t er , E s q. U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on P. O

. B ox 878 B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D C 20044 C ouns el f orR es pondent

_____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________
C H A G A R E S , C irc u it J udge. Si oe Tj en W ong, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of I ndones i a, pet i t i ons for r e v i e w o f a f

i n a l o r d e r o f r e mov a l i s s u e d b y t h e B oar d of Im m i grat i on A p p e a l s ( B IA ). A C at ho l i c Indon esi an o f C hinese de s c e n t , W o n g c l a i ms t h a t s h e h a s a wel l

- f o u n d e d f

e ar of p e r s e c u t i o n i n I n d o n e s i a b e c a u s e o f h e rr e l i g i o n a n d h e re t h n i c i t y. A s w e e x p lai n b elow , su b stan ti al ev id e n c e su p p o rt s the B IA ’s d en ia l of as y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde rt he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( C A T )

. A ccor di ngl y , w e w il l de ny Wo n g ’ s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. I.
B or n i n 1962, W ong w as r ai s ed i n Si tubondo, a ci t yl ocat ed in e a ste rn Ja v a . S ix o f W o n g ’s b ro th e rs a n d sis ter s s til l li v e in eas t ern J ava, as does her m ot her

. H er s i bl i ngs run bus i nes s es , and h e r m o th e r w o rk s a t h o m e . W o n g e n ter e d th e U n ited S tate s a s a n o n -im m ig r a n t in A ugus t1999 and over stay ed hervi s i t or ’ s vi s a. She fi l ed an appl i cat i on for as y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and pro t ect i on undert he C A T in J ul y2000 and w as pl ace d i n r emoval3 pr ocee di ngs . I n herappl i cat i on forr el i ef, W ong cl ai m ed that ethni c I ndones i ans p er s ecut ed herbeca us e s he w as C hi nes e and C athol i c and thatthe g o vernm entfai l ed t o contr ol orpr eventt he p e rse c u tio n . W o n g a ss e rte d th a t in h e r h o m e to w n , eth n ic I ndones i ans oft en broke t he w i ndow s of C hi nes e homes w hen they sm e lled C h in e se c o o k in g , thr e a ten e d e th n ic C h in e se re sid e n ts w ith m e a t cle a v e rs, a n d h e c k led th e m w ith e th n ic s lu rs. A c c o rd in g to W ong, “[o] urchur ches [w e] r e b u rn e d , wom en [w e] r e as s aul t ed and r aped and peopl e [w e] r e murde r ed byM us l i m s w i t houtany c o n s e q u e n c e a t a ll.” A d m in is tr a tiv e R e c o rd (A .R .) 9 8 4

. W hen W ong w as gr ow i ng up, ant i

- C hi nes e r i ot s and att acks w er e w i des pr ead i n I ndones i a. W ong per s onal l ys uffe r ed s ever al ki nds of har as s m entand di scrim inat i on. For exampl e, W ong recal l ed ethni c Indon esi ans l i ft i ng her sk i rt and grabbing h er chest on t he w ayt o s chool

. E t hni c I ndones i ans al s o s t opped W ong i n t he s t r eet , demanded m oney , t hr ew s t ones at her , and ca l l ed hernames o n h e r w a yto c h u rc h . A c c o rd in g to W o n g , sh e w a s n o t allo w e d to s i ng C hr i s t i an s ongs i n publ i c or al l ow ed t o l earn C hi nes e. O nce, herpar ent s t r i ed t o t eac h herC hi nes e, and an e t h n ic I ndones i an, who o v e r h e a r d t h e l e s s o n , t h r e a t e n e d t o b u r n d o wn t h e s t or e t he W o n g s o w n e d a s w e ll a s th e irh o u s e , if th e le s s o n c o n tin u e d

. W ong poi nt ed t o s ever al s peci fi c i nci dent s i n s uppor t of her appl i cat i on forr el i ef f

r om r emoval i n her aff

i davi t and ata hea r i ng befor e the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( I J )

. Fi r s t , s he expl ai ned t hati n 1967 t he governm entconfi s cat ed bus i nes s es run byethni c C hi nes e, i ncl udi ng a s t or e run byherpar ent s . H erfathero p ened another bu si ness i n the 197 0s, deli veri ng and sel l i ng c on s truc t i on m at eri al s, butacc or di ng t o W ong, ethni c I ndones i ans oft en pl ace d or der s and t hen r efus ed t o payfort he mat er i al s . A s a r es ul t , herfatherw as f o rc e d to sh u t d o w n th e b u sin e ss . H e r f a th e r th e n o p e n e d a sm a ll fi shery , usi ng t he n am e of a n ethni c Indon esi an to st art t he b usi ness becau se as an et hn i c C hinese he w as not al l ow ed a b usi ness l i cens e. T hi s bus i nes s fai l ed t oo beca us e “e t hni c I ndonesians cons t ant l ys t ol e fish from [her ] fatherand the ethni c I ndones i an wh o s e n a me [ h e r ] f

a t h e r h a d u s e d c a u s e d [ h i m] p r o b l e ms . ” A. R. 193. A ccor di ng t o W ong, t h ese b us i nes s fai l ur es devas t at ed her fa ther a n d af

ter th e f ishe ryb u sine ss f

ail ed , h e su ff

ere d a h ea rt a tta c k a n d d ie d in J u n e 1 9 7 9

.H ow ever , an af fi davi tW ong s ubm i t t ed t o t he B I A s t at es 1 t hats he “w as bor n w i t h t he name V er oni ca W i y ant i

. ” A

. R

. 192. 4 I n t he ea r l y1980s , W ong’ s fami l y r eac qui r ed the s t or e the governm ent h ad confi s cat ed i n 1967. T heyhad t o payt he governm entfor t he s t or e, how ever , and theyw er e notcompensa t ed fort he l os s of the bus i nes s dur i ng t he y ear s i n w hi ch i tw as cl os ed. T o hel p herm ot her , W ong as s i s t ed w i t h runni ng t he s t or e and w as h a r a s s e d a s a re su lt. W o n g sta ted th a t “[ y ]o u n g , d ru n k e th n ic I ndones i ans oft en cam e t o t he s t or e atni ght , t hr eat eni ng t o bur n t he s t or e dow n” and t o bur n herfac e w i t h ci gar et t es i f s he di d notgi ve th e m m o n e y . A .R . 1 9 3 -9 4

. I n A u g u st 19 9 2 , an ethn ic Ind o n esian stru ck W o n g ’ s br other on t he back of t he head as he w as r i di ng hi s m ot or cy cl e hom e fr om w or k. T he ass ai l ant s t ol e t he m ot orbi ke, and W ong’ s br ot herw as t aken t o t he hos pi t al , w her e he di ed. A l t hough t he hos pi t al offi ci al s t ol d W ong t hatherbr ot herhad l os tt oo m uch bl ood t o be s aved, W ong as s er t s t hat“[n] ot hi ng w as done t o h elp m ybr ot her at t h e h o sp it al be ca u se e thn ic C h ines e w ere req u ir ed to p ayb ef o re r ece i vi ng t r eatm ent , even i n emer gencys i tuat i ons . ” A

. R

. 194. A ccor di ng t o W ong, t he fa m i l y r epor t ed t he i nci dentt o t he pol i ce, but“ther e w as no r eac t i on. ” A

. R

. 565.
W o n g o f f icia llyc h a n g e d h e r na m e f ro m S io e T

jen W o n g to V er oni c a W i y a n t i i n M a r c h 1 9 9 6 , “ s o t h a t [ s h e ] wou l d n o tbe i dent i fi ed as a per s on of ethni c C hi nes e desc entand di s cr i m i nat ed agai ns t
. ” A

. R

. 192, 576, 665, 1000- 01. L at ert haty ear , i n O ct ober 1 1996, t her e w as r i ot i ng i n Si tubondo and the chur ch W ong at t ended w as t w i ce s eton fi r e. C hr i s t i an s chool s and ot her chur ches i n t he to w n w e re a lso b u rn e d a n d in o n e c h u rc h , a p a sto r a n d h is f a m ily w ere ki l l ed. In N ov em ber 199 6, aft er the ch urch bu rni ng i ncident s, W ong and herchur ch choi rw er e pr acti cing in a t entneart he chur ch w hen a gr oup of ethni c I ndones i ans t hr eat ened t o bur n t hem un l ess theyst op ped si ng i ng and pray i ng . A ft er the se inci den t s, W ong coul d notat t end chur ch “be caus e i t w as g uar ded byt he M us l i m fana t i cs . ” A

. R

. 570.5 W o n g e x p lain e d th a t in 1 9 9 8 , an ti-C h in e se rio ts w e re a g a in ram p an t i n Ind o n esia. E thn ic Ind o n esian s b u rne d h o u ses and st or es and raped C hinese w om en. W on g and her f am i l y hid in t heirho use f o r d a y s , wh i l e r i o t e r s t h r e w s t o n e s a n d b r o k e t h e f r o n t wi n d o w. T h e a n ti-C h in e s e v io len c e c o n tin u e d in to 1 9 9 9 . A c c o rd in g to W on g, s he w a nt e d t o l e a ve I nd on e s i a i mm e di at el y , bu tt he U

. S. em bassyi n Jakart a w as cl osed for abo ut a y ear aft er the 1 99 8 ri ots
. A s a r es ul t , s he w as notabl e t o o b tai n a v is a t o go t o t he U ni t ed St at es unt i l A ugus t 1999. A ft er W ong l eftt he countr y , s he l earned t hat heroldestsi st er had als o died. A ccordi ng t o W on g, t he st res s o f c o n stan t hara ssm en t byethn ic Ind o n esian s ca u sed h e r sister’s d e a th

. W ong s ubm i t t ed new s ar t i cl es a n d r e p o rt s d i s cus s i ng hum an ri gh t s and rel i gious freedom i n I nd on esi a, am on g o t her m at eri al s, t o t he I J

. A ft erhol di ng a hea r i ng and r evi ew i ng W ong’ s t es t i m ony and appl i cat i on, t he I J concl uded thatt h e i ns t ance s of dis cri m i nati on and harass m ent that W on g ex peri enced did not r i se t o the l evel of pastpersecut i on . A ccordi ng t o the I J, W on g als o fai l ed t o i dent i fyanygr ounds t o s uppor ta w el l

- founded fearof p e r s e c u t i o n . I n a d d i t i o n , W o n g was u n a b l e t o s h o w a cl ear p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t s h e wo u l d b e t o r tu r e d i f r e tu r n e d t o I n d o n e s i a . As a r es ul t , t he I J deni ed W ong’ s appl i cat i on for r el i ef on D ece m ber 8 , 2 0 0 0 , b u t g ra n te d h e r v o lu n ta ry d e p a rt u re . W ong appea l ed, and th e B IA aff i r m ed the I J ’ s deni al of W ong’ s app li cat i on foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on undert he C A T w i t houtopi ni on on M ar ch 7, 2003. W o n g tim e ly f

ile d a m o tio n to re o p e n w ith th e B IA

. A f t e rr e v i e wi n g n e w r e p o r t s o n c o u n t r yc o n d i t i o ns s ubm i t t ed by W ong, t he B I A gr ant ed W ong’ s m ot i on t o r eopen on A ugus t29, 2003, and r emanded fort he I J t o cons i derevi dence of ch an g ed co u n tryco n d it ion s in In d o n esia d u ri n g the th re e y ea rs s in c e th e o ri g in a l I J d e c is io n . O n r emand, a new I J r evi ew ed the updat ed evi dence , i ncl udi ng new s ar t i cl es , r ece nt U

. S. St at e D epart m ent r epor t s , and an af fi davi tfr om an expe r t on I ndones i a countr ycondi t i ons . B as ed on t hi s evi dence , t he IJ cons i der ed w hetherW ong w oul d be s i ngl ed6 ou tfor persecut i on based o n h er ethn i ci t yand rel ig io n a n d als o as s es s ed w hether t her e w as a “‘ pat t ern or pr act i ce’ of per s ecut i on i n I ndones ia b y for ces t hatt he governm ent[w a] s unabl e or unw i l l i ng t o contr ol

. ” A

. R

. 99. T he I J not ed that“ther e [w e] r e no cr edi bi l i ty is s ues i n t hi s cas e” a nd t hatt he onl yi s s ue on r emand, the re f o re, w as w h ethe r W o n g h ad “a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on i n l i ghtof t he abse nce of pas t per s ecut i on, ” or, i n t he al t ernat i ve, w hetherW ong coul d m eet“the hi ghers t andar d of a cl earpr obabi l i t yof futur e per s ecuti on forw i t hhol di ng [of r emoval ] ” ordemonst r at e thati tw as “more pr obabl e than not[] t hats he w oul d be t ort u red byoratt he i ns t i gat i on of orw i t h t he cons ent or acqui es cenc e of a publ i c offi ci al orot herper s on act i ng in a n o f f ic ia l c a p a c ity. . . .” A .R . 9 7

. T he I J expl ai ned t hat he w as “cons t r ai ned t o concl ude that t he r es pondenthas not pr oven by a pr eponder ance of the evi dence t hat sh e has a r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i t yof futur e per s ecut i on as t hat ter m has been defi ned i n the case l aw i f s he w ere to re tu rn to In d o n e sia , ab se n t a c o n c lu sio n b ye ith e r th e B IA o r th e C irc u it C our tt hats uch a pa t t ern or pr act i ce c oncl us i on w oul d be s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence i n t hi s r ecor d. ” A

. R

. 109. O n D ece m ber 2, 2004, t he I J deni ed W ong’ s pet i t i on for as y l um , w i t hhol di ng of rem o v al, an d reli ef

u n d er the C A T , b u t gran ted h er v o lun tary d e p a rt u re . W on g again app eal ed, and t he B IA dis m i ssed W on g’s cas e o n Ju n e 2 8 , 2 0 0 6 . T h e B IA d e ter m in e d th a t W o n g h a d f a iled to est abli sh a patt ern or pract i ce of persecut i on of e t hn i c C hinese C hri st i ans i n I nd on esi a and no t ed that t he grant of asy l um to W o n g ’s hu sb an d w as n o t dispo sit ive o f h er a sy lum claim

. T h e B IA obs er ved thatt he U

. S. St at e D epart m ent ’ s 2003 and 2004 I nt ernat i onal R el i gi ous Fr eedom R eport s forI ndones i a ( R el i gi ous F re e d o m R e p o rts) in d ica ted th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t h a d tak e n ste p s to c o n tro l an ti-C h ristia n v io len c e , an d th a t v io len c e c o n tin u e d o n lyin s p e c if ic p a rt s o f

In d o n e s ia

. Si m i l ar l y , w hi l e the U

. S. St at e D epart m ent ’ s 2003 and 2004 C o u n tryR e p o rts o n H u m a n R ig h ts P r a c ti c e s f o r In d o n e siaW e r efe rt o t he C o u n tr yR epor t s and R el i gi ous Fr eedom 2 R e p o rt s , c o lle c tiv e ly, as “ th e S ta te D e p a rt m e n t r e p o rt s .” 7 ( C ount r yR epor t s ) docum ent ed ongoi ng har as s m entand 2 d isc rim in a tio n a g a in st e th n ic C h in e se in In d o n e sia , the re p o rts i ndi cat ed thatvi ol ence had ende d. T he B I A al s o det erm i ned that W ong w as notel i gi bl e forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval orr el i ef unde r t h e CA T.
T hi s t i m el ypet i t i on forr evi ew fol l ow ed.
II.
W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew a fi nal or derof r emoval under8 U

. S. C

. § 1252. See B r i s eno- Fl or es v. A t t ’ y G en. , 492 F. 3d 2 2 6 , 2 2 8 (3 d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ). R e m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s o c c u rre d in P h il ad elph ia, P en n sy lvan ia, an d v en u e is t h ere fo re p rop er u n d er 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 5 2 (b)(2 ).
W h e re th e B IA re n d e rs its o w n d e c isio n a n d d o e s n o t m e re ly adoptt he opi ni on of the I J , w e r evi ew t he B I A ’ s deci s i on, nott hat of the I J

. G ao v. A s hcr oft , 299 F. 3d 266, 271 ( 3d C i r . 2002)

. T he B I A i s bound by t he IJ ’ s fac tual det erm i nat i ons “i ncl udi ng fi ndi ngs a s to th e c re d ib ili ty o f tes tim o n y ” a n d re v iew s the se f in d in g s o n ly to d e te rm in e w h e th e r t h e ya re c l e a r ly er ro n e o u s . 8 C .F .R . § 10 03

. 1(d)( 3). “T he B IA ’s con cl usi on s r egardi ng evidence o f past per s ecut i on and the w el l

- founded fea r of per s ecut i on ar e fi ndi ngs of fa ct , ” w hi ch w e r evi ew undert he def er ent i al s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d. C havarr i a v. G onzal ez, 446 F. 3d 508, 515 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ).
W e def ert o t he B I A ’ s fi nding s “i f theyar e ‘ s uppor t ed by rea so n ab le, su b stan ti al, an d p rob ati v e e v iden ce o n the re co rd c o n s id e re d a s a w h o le .’” L ie v . A s h c ro f t, 3 9 6 F .3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 4 n .3 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng I

. N

. S. v. E l i as - Z aca r i as , 502 U

. S. 478, 480 ( 1 9 9 2 ) )

. Und e rt h e d e f e r e n t i a l s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s t a n d a r d , t he B IA ’s f in d in g s “ m u st b e u p h e ld u n les s th e e v id e n c e n o t o n ly s uppor t s a cont raryconcl us i on, butcompel s i t
. ” A bdi l l e v. A shcroft , 24 2 F

. 3d 47 7, 48 4 (3d C i r. 20 01 ) ( ci t i ng E l i as- Z acari as,8 5 0 2 U. S

. a t4 8 1 & n. 1 ) ; s e e 8 U. S

. C. § 1 2 5 2 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( B) ( “[A ] dm i ni s t r at i ve f

ind i ngs of fa ctar e conc l us i ve unl es s any r e a s o n a b l e a d

j u d i c a t o rwou l d b e c o mpe l l e d t o c o n c l u d e t o t he contr ary . . . . ”)

. I n addi t i on, w her e, as her e, “the I J di d notm ake a n ad v erse cre d ibil ityd eterm ination [], w e p roc e e d a s if t h e a li en ’s t es t i m onyw as cr edi bl e. ” G hebr ehi w otv. A tt ’yG en. , 467 F. 3d 3 4 4 , 3 5 0 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ).
W e h a v e p len a ry re v iew o v e r q u e stio n s o f law , “s u b jec t to t he pri nci pl es of def

er ence ar t i cul at ed i n C hevr on v. N atur al R eso u rce s D ef

en se C o u n cil , 4 6 7 U

. S

. 8 3 7 , 8 4 4 [] ( 1 9 8 4 ). ” P ierre v . At t ’ yGen

. , 5 2 8 F. 3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 4 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) ( c i t i ng B r i s enoFl or es , 492 F. 3d at228; W ang v. A s hcr oft , 368 F. 3d 347, 349 ( 3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 )).
III

. A s a t hr es hol d m at t er , w e re j ect W ong’ s ar gum entt hatt he B IA issue d a d ec isi o n that “f ail ed to pro v ide ‘m ea n ing fu l r ev iew ’” o f th e IJ’s d ec is io n . P et’r B r. at 8-9

. C o n tr aryto W o n g ’s c o n ten tio n s, th e B IA ’s e x p lan a tio n o f its re a so n in g is s u f f icie n tly d e ta ile d f

o r t h is C o u rt to re v ie w . I n s uppor tof herar gum ent , W ong r el ies o n M i ah v. A s hcr oft , 346 F. 3d 434 ( 3d C i r . 2003) , i n w hi ch w e h eld t hatt he B I A ’ s fai l ur e t o expl ai n i t s r eas oni ng pr ecl uded th is C our tfr om co n d u cti n g a m ea n ing fu l rev iew o f i ts an aly sis. In M iah, th e B IA r ej ect ed the I J ’ s det er m i nat i on t hat t he pet i t i onerw as notcr edi bl e, b u t th en ad o p ted th e IJ’s re aso n ing as to co rrob o rati o n . T h e B IA di d not anal y ze how i t s as s es s m entt hatt he pet i t i oner ’ s t es t i m ony w as cr edi bl e af

fec t ed the degr ee of

corr obor at i on nece s s aryfort he pet i t i oner t o m eethi s bur den of pr oof. B eca us e the B I A “adopt ed a concl u s i o n o f

t h e I J a f t e rr e j e c t i n g t h e f

i n d i n g o f t h e I J whi ch i nfor m ed thatconcl us i on, ” w e conc l uded t hat“meani ngful r evi ew of the BI A ’ s de c i s i on ” w a s no t po s s i bl e . I d. a t 44 0; s e e al so A w ol es i v. A s hcr oft , 341 F. 3d 227, 233 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( not i ng t hat “w e ar e part i cul ar l yconce r ned aboutbei ng abl e t o gi ve meani ngful r evi ew t o t he B I A ’ s deci s i on w her e the B I A r ever s es t he I J w i t hout e x p la n a tio n ” (e m p h a s is in o ri g in a l) ).9 H er e, i n contr as t , t he B I A di d notr ej ectthe I J ’ s deci s i on. Ra t h e r , t h e BI A c o n s i d e r e d t h e me r i t s o f W o n g ’ s a s y l u m, w ith h o lding o f re m o v al, an d C A T cla im s an d d ism issed W o n g ’s appea l

. T he B I A cons i der ed t he 2003 and 2004 St at e D epart m ent r ep o r t s a n d c o n c l u d e d t h a tt h e r e was n o p a t t e r n o rp r a c t i c e of p e rse c u tio n o f

e th n ic C h in e se in In d o n e sia

. A s w e h a v e p re v io u sly obs er ved, “[w ] e w i l l not hol d [] t hata B I A deci s i on i s i ns uffi ci ent m er el ybeca us e i t s di s cus s i on of ce r t ai n i s s ues ‘ cou ld h ave be en m or e det ai l ed. ’ ” Touss ai ntv. A t t ’ yG en. , 455 F. 3d 4 0 9, 414 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( concl udi ng t hatt he B I A ’ s t w o- page de ci s i on pr ovi ded t he C our tw i t h adequa t e i ns i ght i nt o i t s r eas oni ng and al l ow ed for a meani ngful r evi ew ) ( quot i ng Sevoi an v. A s hcr oft , 290 F. 3d 166, 178 ( 3d C i r . 2002) )

. T he B I A need not“‘ w r i t e an e xeges i s on everycont ent i on. ’ ” Touss ai nt , 455 F. 3d at414 ( quot i ng Z ubeda v. A sh cro ft, 3 3 3 F

. 3 d 4 6 3 , 4 7 7 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 3 )). A lth o u g h the B IA ’s expl anat i on i n t he i ns t antcas e i s br i ef, w e concl ude thatt he deci s i on i s nonethel es s s uf f i c i e n t l yd e t a i l e d t o al l ow form eani ngful r evi ew . A ccor di ngl y , w e tur n t o t he mer i t s of the B I A ’ s deci s i on. I V.
W ong cont ends t hatt he B I A ’ s deci s i on i s nots uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence

. Speci fi cal l y , W o n g a r g ues t hatt he B I A fai l ed t o cons i der t he ent i r e r ecor d i n as s es s i ng t he obj ect i ve bas i s forher f e a r of p e rse c u tio n , a p p lied th e in c o rre c t leg a l sta n d a r d in anal y zi ng her cl ai m , err ed i n i nt r oduci ng t he conc eptof r el ocat i on w i t h in I ndones i a, and mi s i nt erpr et ed herar gum entr egar di ng her hus band’ s as y l ee s t atus . W e di s agr ee. W hi l e t he r ec o rd d oes i ndi cat e thatC hi nes e C hr ist ians i n I ndones i a ar e vi ct i m s of h a ra ss m e n t a n d in tim id a tio n , w e c a n n o t sa yth a t th e ya re su b jec t to a patt ern orpr act i ce of

per s ecut i on as defi ned i n L i e, 3 9 6 F

. 3 d at 5 3 6 . A s w e e x p lain f

u rth e r b e lo w , the re c o rd d o e s n o t co m p e l a f in d in g th a t W o n g h a s a w e ll- f o u n d e d f e a r o f p e rs e c u tio n . T h e A tto rn e y G e n e ra l m a y g ra n t a sy lu m to a n a li e n in rem ov al proceed i ng s i f t he ali en est abli shes that h e o r sh e i s a
“ re f u g e e ” u n d e r t h e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a li ty A c t ( IN A ). 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 15 8(a) , (b)

. T he IN A defines “r efug ee” as10 anyper s on w ho i s out s ide anycountr yof su c h p e rso n ’s n a tio n a lity. . . an d w h o is u n a b le o r u n w ill in g to re tu rn to , an d is u n a b le or unw i l l i ng t o avai l hi m s el f or her s el f of the pr ot ect i on of, t hatcountr ybeca u se of per s ecut ion ora w el l

- founded f earof p er s ecut i on on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a par t i cul ars oci al g ro u p , o r p o litic a l o p in io n . . . . I d. § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) ( emphasi s added)

. A per s on s eeki ng as y l um b e a rs th e b u rd e n o f

d e m o n stra tin g th a t h e o r sh e m e e ts th is d ef init ion

. Id. § 1 1 5 8 (b)(1 )(B )(I )

. Per s ecut i on i ncl udes “‘ t hr eat s t o l i fe, confi nement , t or tur e, a n d e c o n o m ic r e stric tio n s s o se v e re th a t th e yc o n stitu te a th re a t to l i fe orfr eedom. ’ ” K i bi nda v. A t t ’ yG en. , 477 F. 3d 113, 119 ( 3d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ) (qu o ti n g F ati n v . I. N

. S

. , 1 2 F

. 3 d 1 2 3 3 , 1 2 4 0 (3 d C ir

. 1993) )

. H ow ever , per s ecut i on “‘ does notencompas s al l t r eatm ent o u r so ci etyr egar ds as unfai r , unj us toreven unl aw ful or u n const i tut i onal

. ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng Fat i n, 12 F. 3d at1240) ; s ee J arbough v. A t t ’ yG en. , 483 F. 3d 184, 191 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( not i ng t hat“[a ] bus i ve tr eatm entand har as s m ent , w hi l e al w ay s depl or abl e, m aynotr i s e t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on”) ; L i e, 39 6 F. 3d at536 (e x p lain in g th a t ro b b e rie s m o tiv a ted b y e th n icity d o n o t co n stitu te p erse cu ti o n ); F irm an sjah v . G o n za les, 4 2 4 F

. 3 d 5 9 8 , 6 0 5 (7th C ir

. 2005) ( det erm i ni ng t hata r equi r ement t o change one’ s name bas ed o n ethn ici tyis no t eno u g h to es tablish a claim fo r pe rsec u ti o n ).
T he w el l

- founded f

earof per s ecu ti on s t andar d has bot h a s ubj ect i ve and a n obj ect i ve component
. See G hebr ehi w ot , 467 F. 3d at351. Fi r s t , an appl i cant m us t s how t hat hi s or hers ubj ect i ve fe ar is ge n u ine a n d sec o n d that “‘a rea so n ab le p erso n in the ali en ’s c irc u m sta n c e s w o u ld f

e a r pe rse c u tio n if re tu rn e d to th e c o u n tryin ques t i on. ’ ” G uo v. A s hcr oft , 386 F. 3d 556, 564- 65 ( 3d C i r . 2004) (qu o ti n g Z u b ed a, 33 3 F

. 3 d at 46 9 ).
Wo n g ’ s s u b

j e c t i v e f e a ro f p e r s e c u t i o n i s n o tc o n t e s t e d

. As n o ted a b o v e, W o n g p rese n ted cred ible test im o n y an d n eith er th e IJ nor th e B I A ques t i oned the genui ne natur e of he rfea rof11 p erse cu ti o n . R athe r, the k eyissue h ere in is w h eth er the rec o rd compel s a fi ndi ng t hatW ong’ s fea ri s obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e and t hats he has a w el l

- founded f earof per s ecut i on. A n a p p lica n t ca n sa tisf yth e o b je c ti v e p ro n g o f

th e w e llfounded f

earof per s ecut i on s t andar d i n t w o w ay s : bys how i ng t hat he ors he “w oul d be i ndi vi dual l y s i ngl ed outforper s ecut i on” orby “demonstr at [i ng] t hat‘ t her e i s a patt ern orpr act i ce i n his o rher countr y o f nat i onal i t y. . . 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 t he appl i canton acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s h i p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal o p in io n . . . .’” L ie , 3 9 6 F .3 d a t 5 3 6 (q u o tin g 8 C .F .R . § 208. 13( b) ( 2) (i ii )(A )). A s par tof a pa t t ern orpr act i ce c l ai m , an appl i cantm us t“es t abl i s h[] hi s orherow n i ncl us i on i n, and i dent i fi cat i on w i t h, s uch gr oup of [s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed] per s ons s uch tha thi s orherfea rof per s ecut i on upon r etur n i s r eas onabl e. ” 8 C

. F

. R

. § 2 0 8

. 1 3 (b)(2 )(i ii )(B ). Al t h o u g h t h e r e g u l a t i o n s d o n o t d e f i n e t h e me a ni ng of a

“ p a ttern o r p ra c tice o f

p e rse c u tio n ,” w e e x p lain e d in L ie th a t “to con st i tute a ‘ patt ern or pract i ce, ’ t he p ers ecuti on of the group m ust be ‘ s y s t emi c, pervas i ve, oror gani zed. ’ ” 396 F. 3d at537 ( quot i ng N g u re v . A s hcr oft , 367 F. 3d 975, 991 ( 8t h C i r . 2004) )

. T he B IA has adopt ed the def

i ni t i on of “pa t tern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on” set fo rth in L ie, see In re A -M -, 2 3 I. & N

. D ec . 7 3 7 , 7 4 0 -41 (B IA 2005) , as have othercour t s . See, e. g. , W i j ono v. G o n za les, 439 F. 3d 868, 874 ( 8t h C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( “[T] he per s ecut i on of the gr oup m us tbe ‘ s y s t emi c, pervas i ve, oror gani zed. ’ ”) ( quot i ng N gur e, 367 F

. 3 d at 99 1 ); M itrev a v . G o n za les , 4 1 7 F

. 3 d 7 6 1 , 7 6 5 (7th C ir

. 2005) ( not i ng t hat“per s ecut i on of a pr ot ect ed gr oup m us tbe

‘ extr eme, ’ ” “[ t ] her e mustbe a ‘ s y s t emat i c , p ervas i ve, oror gani zed’ eff or t t o ki l l , i m pr i s on, or s ever el yi nj ur e mem ber s of the pr ot ect ed g ro u p , a n d th is ef

f o rt m u st be p e rp e tra ted o r t o ler a te d b y sta te act or s ”) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ; W ol demes kel v. I

. N

. S. , 257 F. 3d 1185, 1191 ( 10t h C i r . 2001) ( defi ni ng “patt ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on” as “‘somet hi ng on t he or derof s y s t emat i c orper vas i ve pers ecut i on’ ”) ( quot i ng M akonnen v. I

. N

. S. , 44 F. 3d 1378, 1383 (8th C ir

. 1 9 9 5 ); cf

. M u fied v . M u k ase y , 5 0 8 F

. 3 d 8 8 , 9 3 (2 d C ir

. 2007) ( ci t i ng t he nee d forfur t hercl ar i fi cat i on of the s t andar d and r emandi ng forB I A t o “el abor at e upon t he ‘ s y s t emi c, per vas i ve, or12 o rg a n ize d ’ sta n d a r d ” ) ; S a h i v . G o n z a les , 4 1 6 F .3 d 5 8 7 , 5 8 9 (7 th C i r . 2005) ( not i ng t hatt he B I A has not“expl ai n[ed] t he di s t i nct i on betw een mer e har as s me n ta n d o u tr i g htper s ecut i on” and r emandi ng fo r B IA to d ef

ine w h at co n sti tutes reli g iou s p erse cu ti o n ).
I n addi t i on, for purpos es of a pat t ern or pr act i ce cl ai m , “as w i t h any cl ai m of per s ecut i on, vi ol ence or ot her har m perpetr at ed b yc iv ili a n s a g a in st th e p e titio n e r’s g ro u p d o e s n o t co n stitu te per s ecut i on unl es s s uch ac t s ar e comm i t t ed byt he governm entor f o rc e s th e g o v e rn m e n t is e ith e r u n a b le o r u n w illin g to c o n tr o l.” L i e, 396 F. 3d at537 ( quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)

. N o r do “gener al u n re s t an d v io le n c e . . . s u p p o rt a n a s y lu m c la im s ta n d in g a lo n e . . . .” K o n a n v . A tt’ yG e n ., 4 3 2 F .3 d 4 9 7 , 5 0 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ).
A.
W ong’ s cont en t i on t hatt he St at e D epart m entr epor t s and ot herb a c k g r o u n d ma t e r i a l s d o c u me n ta p a t t e r n o rp r a c t i c e of p erse cu ti o n o f C h ines e C h ri sti an s in In d o n esia is w ith o u t m erit

. It i s w el l

- es t abl i s hed that“[a ] n al i en maydemonst r ate thathi s / her [w el l

- founded f

earof per s ecut i on] i s obj ect i vel yr eas on abl e by docum en taryorexpertevi dence aboutt he condi t i ons i n a gi ven co u n try . ” L u sing o v . G o n za les, 4 2 0 F

. 3 d 1 9 3 , 1 9 9 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ). T h e e v iden ce in this reco rd, h o w ev er, do es n o t sup p o rtW o n g ’s c la im

. A lth o u g h th e 2 0 0 3 a n d 2 0 0 4 S tate D e p a rtm e n t re p o rts documento ngoi ng har as s m entof C hi nes e I ndones i ans and i s ol at ed i nci dent s of ant i

- C hr i s t i an vi ol ence , i ncl udi ng t he bur ni ng of s even church es in 2003 and t en chur ches i n 2004, t he r epor t s do not in d ica te th a t su c h v io len c e is w id e sp re a d o r system ic

. I n f a c t, acc or di ng t o t he 2004 C ount r y R epor t , “di s cr i m i nat i on and h a ra ss m e n t o f

e th n ic C h in e se In d o n e sia n s d e c lin e d c o m p a re d w ith p re v io u s y e a rs.” A .R . 6 9 . M o re o v e r, th e S tate D e p a rtm e n t re p o rts gener al l yemphasi ze the s t eps t aken byt he I ndones i an governm ent t o pr om ot e r el i gi ous , r aci al , and ethni c t ol er ance and t o r educe i nterrel i gious vi olence. T he repo rt s i nd i cat e t hat pr i vate part i es,W o n g is co rrect th at th e f ac tual fin d ing s in L ie, w h ich w ere 3 bas ed on a now

- out dat ed 1999 C ount r yR epor t , ar e notdi s pos i t i ve i n thi s cas e. Y et , contr aryt o W ong’ s cont ent i on, t he B I A di d not relyo n the f

ac tual fin d ing s in L ie in asse ssing the m erit s o f W o n g ’s cl ai m . R ather , t he B I A bas ed i t s rul i ng t hat t her e w as no pat t ern or pr act i ce of

per s e c u t i o n o f ethni c C hi nes e C hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a on th e recor d b efore i t , w hich i ncluded t he 2 00 3 an d 2 00 4 S tate D e p a rt m e n t r e p o rt s , d is c u s s e d a b o v e . Itis i m p o rt an t t o n o te th at th ese rec en t r ep o rt s are n o t part 4 of the r ecor d and d o n o tt her efor e contr ol ourdeci s i on- m aki ng. B e rish a j v . A sh c ro f

t, 37 8 F

. 3d 31 4, 32 8 (3d C i r. 2 00 4) ( “Iti s a s al ut ary pr i nci pl e of admi ni s t r at i ve l aw r evi ew t hatt he r evi ew i ng c o u rt a c t u p o n a c lo se d re c o rd .”). A lth o u g h o th e r c o u rts o f a p p e a ls h av e tak en jud ici al no ti ce o f n ew co u n tryrep o rt s release d af ter a fi nal agenc ydet erm i nat i on, s ee, e. g. , Pe l i nkovi c v. A s hcr oft , 366 F. 3d 532, 540- 41 ( 7t h C i r . 2004) , w e have decl i ned t o do s o. See B e rish a j, 378 F. 3d at330 ( expl ai ni ng t hatw e have fo ll ow ed “the 13 notgovernm entoffi ci al s , ar e the pr edomi nantcaus e of ha r as s m ent and vi ol ence . 3
I ndeed, ot hercour ts of appe al s cons i der i ng t he s ame 2003 and 2004 C ount r y R epor t s have r ej ect ed s i m i l arpat t ern orpr act i ce cl ai m s of pe rs ecuti on on t he g round s that vi olence againstC hinese C hr i s t ians in I ndones i a has decl i ned, cooper at i on among groups h a s in c re a se d , an d g o v e rn m e n t o f f icia ls h a v e n e ith e r a c q u ies c e d to nor engage d i n t he per s ecut i on of C hi nes e C hr i s t i ans a s a group. See, e. g. , K ho v. K ei s l er , 505 F. 3d 50, 54, 58 & n. 7 ( 1s tC i r . 2007) (fi nd i ng “no on go i ng patt ern or practic e of p ers ecuti on against e th n ic C h in e se o r C h ristia n s in In d o n e sia ” a n d c iti n g th e S tate D epart m ent ’ s 2004 C o u n tr y R epor tfort he l ack of evi dence of governm entact i on or i nact i on i n ant i

- C hi nes e har as s m ent ) ; T ol ego v. G onzal es , 452 F. 3d 763, 766 ( 8t h C i r . 2006) ( r evi ew i ng t he 2003 and 2004 St at e D epart m en t C ount r yR epor t s and r ej ect i ng pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m for w i t hhol di ng of r emoval bas ed on a pa t t ern or p rac ti ce o f pe rsec u ti o n ag ains t C h ines e C h ri sti an s in I n d o n esia). Fur t herm or e, al t hough notr el evantt o t he dec i s i on i n t hi s cas e, m or e r ece ntSt at e D epart m ent r epor t s fr om 2005 t o 2007 document s i m i l ar or i m pr oved tr eatm entof C hi nes e C hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a. 4clea r c o m m an d fro m S E C v . C h en eryC o rp., 3 1 8 U

. S

. 8 0 [] (1 9 4 3 ), t hatcour t s r evi e wi n g th e d et erm i nat i on of an a dm i ni s t r at i ve age ncy m us tappr o v e o r r ej ectt he age ncy ’ s act i on pur el yon t he bas i s of t he r eas ons offe r ed by , and t he r ecor d compi l ed befor e, t he age ncy its e lf ” ).
For i nfor m at i onal purpos es onl y , w e not e thatt he 2007 C o u n t r yR epor t , forexampl e, s t at es t hatat t acks agai ns tchur ches in W est an d E ast Jav a, w h ere W o n g ’s ho m etow n is l o ca ted, w ere “l es s fr equent ” than i n t he pas t
. T he 2007 R el i gi ous Fr eedom R epor t obs er ves t hat w hi l e “extr emi s t gr oups us ed vi ol ence and i nt i m i dat i on t o for ce e i ghts m al l , unl i cens ed chur ches and one A h m a d iyy a m o sq u e to c lo se ,” th e g o v e rn m e n t an d th e p u b lic gener al l yr es pect ed r el i gi ous fr eedom. A ccor di ng t o t he r epor t , t he governm entt ook s t eps t o pr om ot e i nt er fai t h d ia l ogue, and the p re sid e n t g a v e a sp e e c h to re a ss u re C h in e se In d o n e sia n s “ th a t th e ir r i ght s w er e l egal l yand cons t i tut i onal l yguar ant eed. ” In addi t i on, w e have pr evi ous l yr ej ect ed the “di s favor ed 5 gr oup” anal y s i s i n Sael , and w e w i l l notr evi s i tt hatdeci s i on her e. See L ie, 3 9 6 F .3 d a t 5 3 8 n .4 . In a n ye v e n t, th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f o r th e N in th C irc u it i tse lf a p p e a rs to h a v e m o v e d a w a y f ro m its r eas oni ng i n Sael

. See L ol ong v. G onzal es , 484 F. 3d 1173, 1180- 14 W ong’ s ar gum entt hatt he B I A di d not ap p lyt he corr ect leg a l sta n d a rd is un p e rsu a siv e . A lth o u g h th e B IA d id n o t ex p re ss ly c ite th e “ sy ste m ic, p e rv a siv e , o r o rg a n ize d ” sta n d a rd se t f o rth in L i e, 3 9 6 F. 3 d a t 5 3 7 , t h e BI A p r o p e r l y r e v i e wed t h e r e c o r d and det er m i ned that v iol ence w as nots uffi ci ent l yw i des pr ead a nd in c id e n ts of h a ra ss m e n t a n d d isc rim in a tio n w e re n o t s u f f icie n tly s e v e re to c o n s titu te a p a tte rn o r p ra c tic e o f p e rs e c u tio n . M or eover , W ong’ s r el i ance on Sael v

. A s hcr oft , 386 F. 3d 9 2 2 (9th C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ), an d E d u ard v . A sh cro ft, 3 7 9 F

. 3 d 1 8 2 (5th C ir

. 2004) , i s unavai l i ng. C ont r aryt o W ong’ s cont ent i on, t he C our tof A ppeal s fort he N i nt h C i r cui t ’ s fac tual fi ndi ng i n Sael t hatt he C hi nes e w er e “s cape goat s ” i n I ndones i a i s not“a pe r s uas i ve eval uat i on of countr ycondi t i ons , ” as t he d ec isi o n w as bas ed on now - out dat ed countr y condi t i on i nfor m at i on fr om 1998, 1999, and 2 0 0 0

. P et’r B r. at 21

. T h e C o u rto f A p p ea ls fo r th e F ift h C ir cu it ’s 581 ( 9t h C i r . 2007) ( en banc ) ( acknow l edgi ng “hi s t or yof ethni c and rel i gious stri fe” i n Indo nesi a, i ncludi ng at t acks on C hinese C h ri s tia n s, b u t con clud ing that “the rec o rd su p p o rt s the B IA ’s concl us i on t hatL ol ong has nots h o w n t hatt he I ndones i an governm enti s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o contr ol t he p erp et r at or s of this violen ce ”). 15 d ec isi o n in E d u a rd is sim il arlyu n p ersu asiv e. T h ere , the c o u rt b ase d it s fin d ing o f a p att ern an d p rac ti ce o f p erse cu ti o n o n co u n try condi t i ons i n I ndones i a i n 2000. T he factual det erm i nat i on as t o a patt ern or pract i ce cl ai m m ust , h o w e v er, be b ased on t he m ost curr enti nfor m at i on i n t he r ecor d ( i n t hi s cas e, t he St at e D epart m ent r epor t s fr om 2004) , noton o u t dat ed i nfor m at i on fr om 2000. See Sukw anputr a v. G onzal es , 434 F. 3d 627, 637 & n. 10 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( r emandi ng fort he B I A t o cons i derpet i t i oner s ’ pat t ern orpr act i ce cl ai m i n l i ghtof the 2001 C ount r yR epor t i n t he re cor d and not i ng t hat the L ie d eci s i on w as notcontr ol l i ng beca us e i tw as bas ed on a n o u td a te d 1 9 9 9 C o u n tr yR e p o rt ).
F u rth e rm o re , as th e C ou rtof A pp e a ls f o r th e S e v e n th C irc u it o b ser ved i n di st i ng uis hing Ed uard, “each of the ot her ci rcui t s to addr es s t he i s s ue has decl i ned t o fi nd a pat te r n orpr act i ce of p e rs e c u tio n o f

C h ri s tia n In d o n e s ia n s o f C h in e s e d e s c e n t.” K aharudi n v. G onzal es , 500 F. 3d 619, 624 n. 4 ( 7t h C i r . 2007) ( ci t i ng L ol ong, 484 F. 3d at 1180- 81; T ol ego, 452 F. 3d at 766; T u leng k eyv . G o n za les, 4 2 5 F

. 3 d 1 2 7 7 , 1 2 8 1 -82 (10 th C ir

. 2 0 0 5 )); s ee a l s o K ho, 505 F. 3d at 54- 55; I n r e A

- M

- , 23 I

. & N

. D ec. at741 ( “W e do notfi nd .

. . on t he r ecor d befor e us , that the thr eatof harm t o C hi nes e C hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a byt he G overnm ent , orby forces that the G ov ernm ent i s unab l e or un w i l l i ng t o co ntr ol, i s so s y s t emi c orp erv asi ve as t o amount t o a patt ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on. ”)

. A cc o rdin g ly , the rec o rd b ef o re us does not com pel a fi nd i ng of a patt ern or pract i ce of persecut i on of C hinese C h ri s tia n s in In d o n e s ia

. B.
W o n g ’s re m a in in g a rg u m e n ts th a t th e B IA (1 ) in c o rre c tly i nt r oduced the conc eptof r el oc a t i on w i t hi n I ndones i a and ( 2) fai l ed16 to co n side r th e im p o rt an ce o f h er h u sb an d ’s gra n t of asy lum are unper s uas i ve. Fi r s t , as t he G overnm ent corr ect l y not es , “[e ] ven as s um i ng t he B oar d ‘ i m pr oper l yi nt r oduced’ t he i s s ue of i nt ernal r el ocat i on,

. . . th e iss u e w a s n o t d e ter m in a tiv e to th e [ IJ] ’s f in d in g s o f

f a c t in t hi s cas e. . . . T he [I J ] found, and the B oar d agr eed, t hat[] W ong did not es tab lish a p at t ern or pract i ce of persecut i on of C hinese C hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a. ” G ov’ t B r . at 17- 18 n. 3. A s w e expl ai ned above, i n or dert o es t abl i s h a w el l

- founded f earof per s ecut i on, W on g neede d t o demonst r at e an obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e fe arof perse cut i on. W i t houtevi dence of a pa t t 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 or t hat s he w oul d be in d iv id u a llysin g led o u t f o r p e rse c u tio n , W o n g ’s c laim n e c e ss a rily f a ils

. Second, W ong’ s ar gum entt hats he s houl d b e gr ant ed as y l um beca us e her hus band, a C hi nes e C hr i s t i an fr om t he ea s tend of J ava, fac ed s i m i l arexper i ence s and w as gr ant ed as y l um i n 2001 i s al s o unper s uas i ve. W ong ci t es G ebr emi chae l v. I

. N

. S. , 10 F. 3d 28 ( 1s tC i r . 1993) , for t he propos i t i on t hat “[t ] he per s ecut i on of a f a mi l yme mb e ri s a r e l e v a n tc o n c e r n f o ra n a s y l u m c l a i m, e s p e c ia lly w h e re it is f

e a re d o n th e s a m e b a s i s a s a n a p p lic a n t.” Pet ’ rB r . at16. I ti s t rue t h at s ucce s s ful as y l um appl i cat i ons by f a m ily m e m b e rs c a n b e re le v a n t to a p e titio n e r’ s c la im . S e e , e .g ., C ham v. A t t ’ yG en. , 445 F. 3d 683, 693 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( not i ng relev an ce o f p erse cu ti o n o f f am il ym em b ers, pa rt icularlyw h ere “the re is a h igh d eg ree o f fa ctua l sim il arity b etw ee n the a p p li ca n t’ s cl ai m a n d t h o s e o f h i s f a mi l y me mbe r s , a n d whe r e h i s c l a i m of p o litic a l p e rs e c u tio n re s ts o n th a t v e ry f a m ilia l r e la tio n s h ip ” ).
Y et , as t he G overnm entcorrec t l ynot es , W ong has not p rov ided an yd eta ils a s to h er h u sb an d ’s claim an d w e the ref o re cannotas s es s i t s s i m i l ar i t y or r el evanc e t o her cl ai m . I ti s cl eart hat W o n g “ c a n n o t re lyso lelyo n th e p e rse c u tio n o f [ h e r] f a m ily m e m bers t o quali fy for asy l um or bo ots t rap” on e case o n toW on g sub m i t t ed an I- 73 0 p et i t i on t o q uali fyhe r as a 6 der i vat i ve as y l ee ba s ed on herhus band’ s as y l ee s t atus , buts he c o n c e d e s t h a t we d o n o th a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rt h a tp e t i t i o n , a n d we w ill th e re f

o re n o t a d d re s s it f

u rt h e r. 17 ano t her. Id. (ci t at i on s and q uo t at i on m arks om i t ted ); see al so

6 Sur y a v. G onzal es , 454 F. 3d 874, 878 ( 8t h C i r . 2006) ( “[A ] t t acks on fami l ym ember s , abs enta patt ern of per s ecut i on t ie d t o t he appl i cant , do notes t abl i s h a w el l

- founded f earof per s ecut i on; nor do i sol at ed acts of v i olence. ”). C on t raryt o W on g’s cont enti on s, th e g ra n t o f

a sy lu m to h e r h u sb a n d d o e s n o t as s is t W o n g in e s ta b lis h in g h e r c la im

. F u rth e rm o re , W o n g ’s s ib lin g s a n d m o th e r s til l li v e in I ndones i a and pr act ice C athol i ci s m , under m i ni ng hercl ai m t o a w el l

- founded f

earof persecut i on i n I ndones i a. See Set i adi v. G onzal es , 4 3 7 F

. 3 d 710, 714 & n. 3 ( 8t h C i r . 2006) ( r ej ect i ng p eti ti o n er’s claim to a w ell -fo u n d e d fe ar o f p erse cu ti o n w h ere C hr i s t i an r el at i ves r emai ned unharm ed i n cont ent i ous par tof In d o n e sia a n d n o tin g th a t “th e re a re m a n yp o ss ib le a re a s in Ind o n esia w h ere [p eti ti o n er] an d h is fam il yco u ld reloc ate” ); N i ki j ul uw v. G onzal es , 427 F. 3d 115, 122 ( 1s tC i r . 2005) ( not i ng th a t p e tit io n e r’s C h ristia n re lativ e s liv e d p e a c e a b lyin In d o n e sia and d eter m i ni ng t hat“[w ] hi l e a r eas onabl e per s on i n t he p e tit io n e r’s p o sitio n m ig h t f e a r e n c o u n ter in g so m e p riv a te h o stility i n a maj or i t y M us l i m countr y on acc ount of hi s C hr i s t i an Pr ot es t ant bel i efs , t he r ecor d does not m ake m ani fes t anyobj ect i ve bas i s for a f ea r of p erse cu ti o n ”).
A l t hough w e ar e s ym pathet i c t o W ong’ s pl i ght , har as s m ent and d is cr i m i nat i on do notcons t i tut e per s ecut i on. T he 2003 and 20 04 S t at e D epart m ent r ep o rts indicat e t hat att acks on C hinese C hr i s t i ans cont i nued i n cert ai n ar eas , butvi ol en ce w as not w id e spread, and t he I nd on esi an gov ernm ent w as t aking s t eps to contr ol i t
. M or eover , as document ed i n t he St at e D epart m ent r epor t s , t he In d o n es i an governm enthas s how n a gene r al comm i t m ent t o fr eedom of r el i gi on, as w el l as t o ethni c t ol er ance . W ong has notdemonst r at ed an obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e fe arof18 per s ecut i on, and w e hol d t hatt he B I A ’ s deci s i on i s s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence

. V.
W ong al s o s eeks r el i ef i n the for m of w i t hhol di ng of re m o v a l an d p ro tec tio n u n d e r th e C A T . T h e se c laim s a lso f a il.
T o q uali fyfor w i t hh oldi ng of r em ov al , a peti t i on er m ust “es t abl i s h a cl earpr obabi l i t y , ” meani ng “that i t i s m or e l i kel yt han not , t hathe/ s he w oul d s uffe rper s ecut i on. ” G hebr ehi w ot , 467 F. 3d at 351 ( quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)

. W her e, as her e, a pet i t i onerhas notm et her bur den of pr oof w i t h r es pectt o as y l um , t he pet i t i oner i s al s o not el i gi bl e forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval

. See, e. g. , G uo, 386 F. 3d at561 n. 4. W ong has notes t abl i s hed a w el l

- founded f earof p e r s e c u t i o n a n d , a s a r e s u l t , a l s o c a n n o ts h o w a “ c l e a rp r o b a b i l i t y” of p ers ecuti on i n Indo nesi a beca use of her st atu s as a C hinese C h ri s tia n . I n addi t i on, al t hough W ong’ s i nit ial appl i cat i on forr el i ef i ncl uded a CA T cl ai m , W ong fai l s t o chal l enge the B I A ’ s deni al of r e l i e f u n d e rt h e CA T , a n d we wi l l t h e r e f o r e n o t c o n s i d e rh e rCA T c la im . S e e , e .g ., S u k w a n p u tr a , 4 3 4 F .3 d a t 6 3 6 n .8

. V I.
For t he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l denyW ong’ s pet i t i on for r e v i e w.