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 7-16-2008 

# S anto so 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 . 07-3065

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 " S ant os o v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 836. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008/836NOT 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- 3065

___________ HADI S ANT OS O, 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 96- 204- 443) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e D onal d V i ncentFer l i s e

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

J ul y9, 2008 B efor e: R E N D E L L , G R E E N B E R G and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges ( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y16, 2008)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________2

P E R C UR I AM H ad i Sa n toso p eti ti o n s fo r rev iew o f a fin al ord er o f re m o v al i ssu ed b ythe B o ard o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ). W e w ill d e n yh is p e titio n . I . Sant os o i s a J avane s e M us l i m , nat i ve and c i t i zen of I ndones i a. H e ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n J anuary2001 on a vi s a and r emai ned bey ond hi s author i zed da t e w i thout perm i s s i on. H e w as then pl ace d i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs i n J ul y2003. I n O ct ober2004, Sant os o appl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , pr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) , and vol unt arydepartur e. H e evi dent l ycl ai m ed thathe s uffe r ed per s ecut i on, and fe ar ed per s ecut i on i n the futur e, on acc ountof an i m put ed pol i t i cal opi ni on ar i s i ng outof hi s part i ci pat i on i n a y outh or gani zat i on and the as s i s t ance he p ro v id e d in re b u ild in g a C h in e s e f a m ily’s h o u s e a f

te r t h e 1 9 9 8 ri o ts . F o llo w in g a h e a rin g , the Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e (“ IJ” ) d e n ied S a n to so ’s a sy lu m c laim a s tim e -b a rre d a n d f

u rth e r d e ter m in e d th a t S a n to so f a iled to m e e t h is b u rd e n o f p ro o f w ith re sp e c t to e ith e r w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l o r C A T re lief. H o w e v e r, th e IJ d id g ra n t h is re q u e st f o r v o lu n tar yd e p a rtu re . O n Ju n e 2 0 , 2 0 0 7 , the B IA d ism iss e d S a n to so ’s a p p e a l, expr es s l yagr eei ng w i th the I J ’ s var i ous fi ndi ngs . I tther efor e hel d thatthe as y l um a p p lica tio n w a s tim e -b a rre d . T h e B IA f u rth e r o b se rv e d th a t S a n to so w a s n o t en tit led to w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l b e c a u se h e f

a iled to e sta b lish e ith e r p a st p e rse c u tio n o r a w e ll-W e n o te th a t th e IJ r e jec ted S a n to so ’s a sy lu m re q u e st a s u n tim e lya f ter e x p re ss ly 1 co n clud ing that h e f

ail ed to sa ti sfythe c h an g ed o r ex tr ao rdin arycircu m stan ce s stan d ard fora l at e appl i cat i on. See, e. g. , 8 U . S. C . §§ 1158( a) ( 2) ( B ) , ( D ) . T he B I A concurr ed, 3 founded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on on acc ountof a pr ot ect ed gr ound. Fi nal l y , i taff i r m ed th e IJ’ s c o n c lu sio n th a t S a n to so f a iled to d e m o n stra te a lik e lih o o d o f to rtu re if

re tu rn e d to I ndones i a. Sant os o w as perm i t t ed t o departthe countryvol unt ar i l yw i thi n 60 day s , but the B I A or der ed hi m r emoved i f he f ai l ed t o do s o. Sant os o fi l ed a t i m el ypet i t i on for re v ie w . II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overthi s m att erpur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252. B eca us e the BI A a g r e e d wi th th e f

i n d i n g s ma d e b yth e I J a n d th e n a d d e d i t s o wn b r i e f d i s c u s s i o n , we m us tr evi ew both the B I A ’ s or deras w el l as the I J ’ s deci s i on. See, e. g. , J arbough v. A t t orneyG ener al , 483 F. 3d 184, 191 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . W e r evi ew thei rr es pect i ve fa ctual fi ndi ngs underthe s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d. See, e. g. , i d. T o obt ai n w i thhol di ng of r emoval , Sant os o w as r equi r ed t o s how “‘ thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthat[he] w oul d be s u b j e c tt o p e r s e c u t i o n o n o n e o f th e s p e c i f

i e d g r o u n d s [ r a c e , r e l i g i o n , n a t i o n a l 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] . ’ ” I d. at190- 91 ( quot i ng IN S v . S tev ic, 4 6 7 U .S . 4 0 7 , 4 2 9 -3 0 (1 9 8 4 )). T h e B IA a g re e d w ith th e IJ th a t h e f a iled to m ake s uch a s how i ng. A ft err evi ew i ng the part i es ’ ar gum ent s as w el l as the admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d, w e conc l ude thatthi s admi ni s tr at i ve det erm i nat i on i s s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the r ecor d. 1addi ng thatSant os o “does notchal l enge the [I J ’ s ] fi ndi ngs on thi s poi nti n any

m eani ngful w ay . ” ( A R 000002. ) T hi s C our tgener al l ym aynotr evi ew an admi ni s tr at i ve d e te rm in a tio n th a t a n a s y lu m a p p lic a tio n w a s u n tim e ly. S e e , e .g ., 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (a )( 3 ). Sant os o al s o fai l s t o chal l enge the deni al of hi s C A T cl ai m , and w e ac cor di ngl yconcl ude that h e a b an d o n ed h is cl aim . S ee , e.g., C h en v . A sh cro ft, 3 7 6 F . 3 d 2 1 5 , 2 2 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). A c c o rd in g ly , the o n lyp o ss ib le f o rm o f re lief c u rre n tlyb e f

o re th e C o u rt is w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. Such i nci dent s evi dent l yoccurr ed dur i ng the cr i m i nal tr i al of the fi ve men w ho 2 att ac k ed S an toso . H e c lai m ed that: ( 1 ) a M ad u ran ese ind ividu al sl ap p ed h is si ster; 4 S antoso evident l ychall eng es the IJ’ s fi nd i ng that he di d n ot es t abli sh that the p ast i nci dent s des cr i bed i n hi s t es t i m onyand af fi davi tw er e comm i t t ed on ac countof a pr ot ect ed gr ound, i ncl udi ng hi s i m put ed pol i t i cal opi ni on. N everthel es s , the B I A s t at ed that“[w ] e al s o agr ee w i th the I m m i gr at i on J udge that , as s um i ng ar guendo, the r es pondent w as harm ed on ac countof a pr ot ect ed gr ound, the harm does notr i s e t o the l evel of per s ecut i on. ” ( A R 000003 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ) . I ti s w el l es t abl i s hed that“the conc eptof per s ecut i on does notencompas s al l tr eatm entthatours oci etyr egar ds as unfai r , unj us t , or e v e n u n la w f

u l o r u n c o n s titu tio n a l.” F a tin v . IN S , 1 2 F .3 d 1 2 3 3 , 1 2 4 0 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). I ns t ead, the conc eptgener al l yencompas s es “thr eat s t o l i fe, confi nement , t or tur e, and e c o n o m ic re s tr ic tio n s s o s e v e re th a t th e yc o n s titu te a th re a t to lif e o r f re e d o m .” Id . I n A ugus t1998, Sant os o w as phy s i cal l yas s aul t ed bya gr oup of M adur anes e men d e m a n d in g to k n o w w h yh e w a s h e lp in g C h in e se C h ristia n s. A lth o u g h c e rta in ly un fortun at e, there i s adequ at e evidenti arysupp ortt o find t hat the att ack as w el l as the les s se rio u s in c id e n ts m e n tio n e d b yS a n to so a re in su f f icie n tlyse v e re to c o n stitu te p erse cu ti o n . S ee , e.g., K ibind a v . A tt o rne yG en era l, 4 7 7 F . 3 d 1 1 3 , 1 1 9 -20 (3d C ir .

2( 2) M adur anes e gang mem ber s dr ove byhi s hous e on mot or cy cl es s hout i ng i ns ul t s and

throw i ng rocks; and (3) the g ang m em bers m ade thr eat ening ph on e cal l s t o the hou se s e v e ra l tim e s a d a y . 5 2 0 0 7 ); V o c i v . G o n z a les , 4 0 9 F .3 d 6 0 7 , 6 1 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). In f a c t, th e p o lice a c tu a lly arr es t ed the fi ve pr i vat e ci t i zens r es pons i bl e forthe att ack, w ho w er e then tr i ed, convi ct ed w ith th e h e lp o f

S a n to s o ’s o w n te s tim o n y , a n d e v e n tu a lly se n te n c e d to 1 8 m o n th s in ja il. See, e. g. , L i e v. A s hcr oft , 396 F. 3d 530, 537 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( “[A ] s w i th anycl ai m of p e rse c u tio n , v io len c e o r o th e r h a rm p e rp e tra ted b yc iv ili a n s . . . 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 bythe governm entorfor ces the governm ent i s ei ther ‘ un able orun w i l l i ng ’ t o co ntr ol. ” (quotat i on om i t t ed)) . G i ven the cir cum st ances, w e m ustcon cl ud e t hat the rej ect i on of h i s pastpersecut i on cl ai m bythe B IA (and t he IJ) is s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . S an toso also co n ti n u es to claim that h e f ea rs retr ibu ti o n b ythe f ive m en w h o w ere in c a rc e ra ted b e c a u se o f h is te stim o n y . H e e m p h a siz e s th a t h is s ib lin g s s til l re sid in g in In d o n e sia h a v e re c e iv e d p h o n e c a lls in q u irin g a b o u t h is w h e re a b o u ts f ro m in d iv id u a ls sp e a k in g in a M a d u ra n e se a c c e n t. H o w e v e r, as th e B IA n o ted , h is a ttac k e rs a p p a re n tly d id n o t h a rm h im a f

ter th e yw e re re lea se d f ro m jail. In a d d iti o n , the re is n o re a l re a so n to concl ude thatthe governm entw oul d notactt o s t op oratl eas tpuni s h anycr i m i nal act s of r evenge agai ns thi m , es peci al l yi n l i ghtof i t s pr evi ous pr os ecut i on and i ncar cer at i on of th e f iv e m e n . W e th e re f

o re c o n c lu d e th a t th e B IA c o m m itt e d n o re v e rsib le e rro r inS a n to so a lso a rg u e s in p a ss in g th a t th e IJ m isa p p lied th e g o v e rn in g law a n d f a iled to 3 co n side r ke yp arts of

h is t esti m o n y . A rev iew o f th e re co rd in d icates tha t bo th the B IA a n d th e I J p r o p e r l yc o n s i d e r e d th e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a n d ma d e n o a p p a r e n te rr o ro f l a w. 6 r ej ect i ng hi s cl ai m of a w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on. 3 III . Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e hol d thats ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the deni al of Sant os o’ s r eques tforw i thhol di ng of r emoval . W e w i l l acc or di ngl yD E N Y hi s pet i t i on f o r r e v ie w .