2010 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 8-16-2010 

# Ant oniu s T argono 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 . 09-3445

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_2010

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 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 " Ant onius T

arg ono v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 757. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/757I M G - 274 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. 09- 3445

___________ ANT ONI US T AR GONO, 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 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 o. A 079- 734- 251) Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on orabl e D on al d V . F erl i se

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

A ugus t11, 2010 B efor e: M C K E E , C hi ef J udge H A R D I M A N A N D C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t16, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM A nt oni us T ar gono, an I ndones i an ci t i zen of C hi nes e des cent , pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ’ ( “B I A ”) deci s i on uphol di ng the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) r emoval or derand deny i ng T ar gono’ s appl i cat i on forw i t hhol di ng of

### 2

r e mo v a l . F o rt h e f

o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , 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. I T ar gono ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n 2001 and r emai ned bey ond t he author i zed per i od. B efor e the I J , he conc eded r emovabi l i t y . L at er , i n 2004, T ar gono fi l ed an a p p lic a tio n f

o r a s y lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l, a n d C A T p ro te c tio n . I n s uppor tof hi s appl i cat i on, T ar gono t es t i fi ed that , betw een the age s of 7 and 15, he w as r epea t edl yi ns ul t ed byI ndones i an chi l dr en w ho s hout ed “Chi nes e, C hi nes e, ” at hi m and t ol d hi m he di d notdes erve t o be i n I ndones i a. I n addi t i on, appr oxi m at el ythr ee t i m es perw eek, he w as s t opped on the w ayt o s chool bynei ghborhood chi l dr en and y oung adul t s w ho w oul d demand m oneyfr om hi m beca us e theys aw he w as C hi nes e and b e liev e d h e w a s w e a lth y . If h e d id n o t h a v e m o n e y , the yw o u ld h it h im , b u t n o t en o u g h to caus e i nj ur y . T ar gono t es t i fi ed thatthe w or s tthi ng t o happen t o hi m w as the t aunt i ng by h is c las sm a tes . H e a lso tes tifie d th a t h e f e a rs r e tu rn in g to In d o n e sia b e c a u se o f th e rio ts th a t o c c u rr e d in M a y1 9 9 8 a n d b e c a u s e c h u rc h e s a re b e in g d e s tr o y e d . T he I J deni ed Tar gono’ s appl i cat i on, r eas oni ng thathi s as y l um appl i cat i on w as u n ti m elyan d that h e f

ail ed to d em o n str ate p ast p erse cu ti o n o r a c lear p rob ab il ityo f f u ture per s ecut i on. T he B I A uphel d t he I J ’ s deci s i on, butr emanded forcons i der at i on of T argono ’s C A T cl ai m , w hich T argono ult i m at el yw i t hd rew . A ft er further proceedings, T a r g o n o 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.

### 3 II W e h a v e ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a ). B e c a u se th e B IA iss u e d its ow n opi ni on, w e r evi ew i t s deci s i on r atherthan thatof the I J . See Li v. A t t ’ yG en. , 400 F. 3d 157, 162 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . H ow ever , w e al s o l ook t o t he dec i s i on of the I J t o t he ext entt hatt he B I A defe r r ed t o oradopt ed the I J ’ s r eas oni ng. See C havarr i a v. G onzal ez, 446 F. 3d 508, 515 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . W e r evi ew the A gency ’ s fac tual det erm i nat i ons for su b sta n tial e v id e n c e , an d w ill u p h o ld su c h d e ter m in a tio n s u n les s a n yre a so n a b le ad jud icator w o u ld b e c o m p ell ed to rea ch a c o n tr aryco n clus ion . S ee F iadjo e v . A tt ’y G e n ., 4 1 1 F .3 d 1 3 5 , 1 5 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). “The t hr es hol d fores t abl i s hi ng el i gi bi l i t yforw i t hhol di ng of r emoval i s hi gher t han thatfores t abl i s hi ng ent i t l ementt o as y l um and r equi r es the al i en t o demonstr at e a

‘ cl earpr obabi l i t y ’ t hat , upon r emoval t o t he countr yof or i gi n, hi s orher‘ l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened on a ccountof one of the s t atut or i l yenumer at ed fa ct or s . ’ ” O bal e v. A t t ’ yG en. , 453 F. 3d 151, 161 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng Senathi r aj ah v. I N S, 157 F. 3d 210, 2 1 5 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 )). T h e c lea r p ro b a b ili tysta n d a rd is m e t if a n a p p lica n t sh o w s th a t itis m or e l i kel yt han nott hathe w i l l s uffe rper s ecut i on. See M i ah v. A s hcr oft , 346 F. 3d 434, 43 9 (3d C i r. 20 03 ). A n ap pli cant m aym eetthis st and ard bydem on strat i ng past per s ecut i on, w hi ch cr eat es a r ebut t abl e pr es um pt i on of futur e per s ecut i on, orby demonstr at i ng t hata futur e thr eatt o hi s l i fe orfr eedom i s l i kel y , ei t herbeca us e he w i l l be s i ngl ed outforper s ecut i on orbeca us e he i s a mem berof a gr oup s ubj ectt o a patt ern or

### 4

pr act i ce of

per s ecut i on. See 8 C . F. R . § 208. 16( b) . Per s ecut i on i ncl udes “thr eat s t o l i fe, c o n f in e m e n t, t o rtu re , an 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. ” Fat i n v. I N S, 12 F. 3d 1233, 1240 ( 3d C i r . 1993) . H ow ever , i t“does not encompas s al l t r eatm entt hatours oci etyr egar ds as unfai r , unj us t , oreven unl aw ful or uncons t i tut i onal . ” I d. T ar gono pr es ent s t w o ar gum ent s i n hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew . Fi r s t , he ar gues thatt he B I A err ed i n concl udi ng t hathe fa i l ed t o demonstr at e pas tper s ecut i on. I n deny i ng r el i ef, th e B IA re a so n e d th a t th e in c id e n ts T a rg o n o e n d u re d , v iew e d c u m u lativ e ly , d id n o t rise to t he l evel of per s ecut i on. W e agr ee. A l t hough unfor tunat e, the t aunt i ng, s t eal i ng, and hi t t i ng T ar gono fac ed w er e nots o s ever e thattheycons t i tut ed a thr eatt o hi s l i fe or f re e d o m . S e e id . Second, T ar gono ar gues t hatthe B I A fai l ed t o cons i derw hethera patt ern or p rac ti ce o f p erse cu ti o n ag ains t C h ines e C h ri sti an s ex ist s in In d o n esia. T h o u g h the IJ expr es s l yhel d t hatt he bac kgr ound evi dence T ar gono s ubm i t t ed fa i l ed t o demonstr at e a p a ttern o r p ra c tice o f

p e rse c u tio n a g a in st C h in e se C h ristia n s in In d o n e sia , the B IA d id not . R ather , t he B I A s t at ed gene r al l ythatT ar gono “di d nots how a cl earpr obabi l i t yof p erse cu ti o n u p o n h is r eturn [to Ind o n esia],” A R 1 4 5 , an d ex p resslyag ree d w ith the IJ’s h o ld in g th a t T a rg o n o f

a ile d to d e m o n s tr a te th a t h e w o u ld b e s in g le d o u t f o r p e rs e c u tio n . T a rg o n o c o n te n d s th a t th e B o a rd ’s o m is s io n re q u ir e s a re m a n d f o r f u rt h e r c o n s id e ra tio n . W e di s agr ee. “The B oar d i s notr equi r ed t o w r i t e an e xeges i s on everycont ent i on, but

### 5

onl yt o s how t hati thas r evi ew ed the r ecor d and gr as ped the [a l i en’ s ] cl ai m s . ” Sevoi an v. A s hcr oft , 290 F. 3d 166, 178 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . I n decl i ni ng t o expr es s l ydi s cus s T ar gono’ s “patt ern orpr act i ce” cl ai m , the B oar d i m pl i ci t l yadopt ed the I J ’ s r eas oni ng. T o t he ext entthatT ar gono chal l enges the A g en cy ’s de term ination that the b ac k g rou n d ev iden ce h e p rov ided d id n o t sho w a p att ern o r p ra c tic e o f

p e rs e c u tio n , w e a g re e w ith th e G o v e rn m e n t th a t s u c h a c la im la c k s m e ri t. W e hel d i n Si oe Tj en W ong v. A t t ’ yG en. , 539 F. 3d 225, 233- 34 ( 3d C i r . 2008) , thatt he s ame r epor t s T ar gono pr ovi ded w er e i ns uffi ci entt o demonstr at e s uch a pa t t ern or pr act i ce. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we wi l l d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.