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 7-17-2008 

# W ong 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 . 07-2118

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_2008

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 2008 D e c i sion s b y 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 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 " W on g v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 832. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/832NOT 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- 2118

___________ HAR RY WI BO W W ONG; I NGGR I D L I ADI L I E ; F E RY WI BO WO W ONG; T ONY WI BO WO; AR DY S UWONGS O WONG, 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 B I A N os . A 96- 264- 097/ 098/ 099/ 100/ 101 ( U . S. 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 efore: S C IR IC A , C hief J ud ge, C H A G A R E S and A L D ISE R T , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: J ul y17, 2008)

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ P E R C U R I A M. P e tit io n e r H a rryW ib o w W o n g , h is w if e a n d th re e c h ild re n , all n a tiv e s a n d e th n ic C hi nes e ci t i zens of I ndones i a, fi l ed a t i m el ypet i t i on forr evi ew of the B I A ’ s deci s i onP e t i t i o n e rWo n g n a me d h i s wi f e , I n g g r i d L i a d i L i e , a n d th r e e c h i l d r e n , F e ryWi b o wo 1 W o n g , T o n yW ib o w o , a n d A rd yS u w o n g s o W o n g , a s d e ri v a tiv e o f h is a s y lu m c la im . W ong’ s or i gi nal as y l um appl i cat i on nami ng hi s w i fe a nd chi l dr en maybe dee m ed an as y l um appl i cat i on as t o al l r es pondent s . See 8 C . F. R . § 1208. 3( a) . W ong’ s w i fe a nd chi l dr en fi l ed s epar at e appl i cat i ons forw i thhol di ng fr om r emoval and forpr ot ect i on u n d e rth e CA T. 2 d i s mi s s i n g th e i ra p p e a l o f th e i mmi g r a t i o n j u d g e ’ s d e n i a l o f th e i ra p p l i c a t i o n f

o ra s y l u m, f o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l a n d re lie f

u n d e r t h e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rt u re (“ C A T ” ). F o rth 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. T he W ong fami l yent er ed the countryas vi s i t or s w i th B - 2 vi s as atdi ffe r entt i m es i n 2 0 0 1 a n d 2 0 0 2 . Wo n g ’ s wi f e , I n g g r i d L i a d i L i e , a n d th e i re l d e s ts o n , F e ryWi b o wo W ong, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n J ul y2001. H arryW ong fol l ow ed, arr i vi ng i n the U n ited S tate s in O c to b e r 2 0 0 1 . In Ju ly2 0 0 2 , b e f o re h is v isa e x p ire d , W o n g tra v e led to In d o n e sia a n d re tu rn e d to th e U n ited S tate s w ith h is tw o y o u n g e st s o n s. A f ter h is a n d h is fami l y ’ s vi s as had expi r ed, W ong fi l ed an appl i cat i on foras 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 or tur e ( “C A T ”) . O n M ay13, 1 2003, the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i tyi s s ued N ot i ces t o A ppearchar gi ng p e tit io n e rs w ith b e in g su b jec t to re m o v a l u n d e r th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lityA c t § 237( a) ( 1) ( B ) , 8 U . S. C . § 1227( a) ( 1) ( B ) , forr emai ni ng i n the U ni t ed St at es bey ond the author i zed pe r i od. I n s uppor tof hi s appl i cat i on foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval and pr ot ect i on underC A T , W ong cl ai m ed thathe and hi s fami l yw er e per s ecut ed i n the pas tand have a3

fea rof futur e per s ecut i on i n I ndones i a on the bas i s of thei rC hi nes e ethni ci tyand B uddhi s tr el i gi on. A ccor di ng t o W ong’ s t es t i m ony , he and hi s w i fe w er e born i n the v ill a g e o f

U ju n g P a n d a n g o n th e isla n d o f S u law e si. T h e yso u g h t to lea v e In d o n e sia w ith thei rchi l dr en bec aus e the M us l i m peopl e ther e hat e ethni c C hi nes e B uddhi s t s . W ong t es t i fi ed t o t hr ee i nci dent s thatconvi nced hi m thattheyhad t o l eave . I n 1995, w hen the f a m ilyliv e d in S u ra b a y a , Ja v a , u n k n o w n a d u lt eth n ic I n d o n e sia n s b e a t h is s o n u p o n h is w ayhom e fr om s chool and s t ol e hi s new bi ke. W ong r eport ed the i nci dentt o the pol i ce, w h o d id n o th in g . In 1 9 9 7 , rio ts b ro k e o u t o n S u law e si isla n d . M a n yb u ild in g s in th e c ity w e re d e stro y e d b yf

ire , inc lu d in g tw o tem p les , o n e o f w h ich w a s th e B u d d h ist T e m p le thatthe W ong fami l yatt ended. T w o C hi nes e I ndones i ans di ed i ns i de a burni ng hous e s et afi r e bygangs of I ndones i an M us l i m s . W ong and hi s fami l yw er e notper s onal l yi nvol ved i n the r i ots , ho w ever, becau se theyw ere notvis i t i ng the is l and atthe ti m e. T he las t i nci dentoccurr ed i n J ul y2000. W ong and hi s w i fe w er e dr i vi ng thei rcarthr ough a M u slim a re a in S u ra b a y a . W h e n th e yc a m e to a sto p a t a r e d lig h t, th re e o r f o u r M u slim I ndones i ans j um ped on the ca r , thr eat ened W ong w i th a kni fe pl ace d athi s thr oat , and s t ol e hi s cel l phone and w al l et . H e di d notr eportthe i nci dentt o the pol i ce be caus e he thoughti tw oul d be us el es s . W ong t es t i fi ed thathe fe ar ed thathe and hi s fami l yw oul d be arr es t ed and pos s i bl ym ur der ed i f theyr eturned t o I ndones i a. O n cr os s - exami nat i on, W ong t es t i fi ed thatnothi ng happene d t o hi m i n the fi vemo n th p e r i o d b e twe e n th e t i me h e r e c e i v e d h i s B- 2 v i s a ( i n M a y2 0 0 1 ) a n d wh e n h e c a me4

t o the U ni t ed St at es ( i n O ct ober2001) . N ordi d he expe r i ence anypr obl ems w hen he r eturned t o I ndones i a forfi ve mont hs i n J ul y2002 t o br i ng hi s tw o chi l dr en bac k t o the U n ite d S ta te s . B o th h e a n d h is w if e h a v e f a m ily liv in g o n S u la w e s i is la n d in In d o n e s ia . A ccor di ng t o W ong, none of thes e fa m i l ym ember s r eport ed anyr ece ntpr obl ems l i vi ng ther e bas ed on thei rethni ci tyorr el i gi on. O n Sept ember16, 2005, fol l ow i ng a hea r i ng, the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( I J ) deni ed p e tit io n e rs’ a p p lica tio n s f o r re lief a n d o rd e re d th e m re m o v e d . T h e IJ c o n c lu d e d th a t, al though W ong w as cr edi bl e, he had notpr oven anypas tper s ecut i on orthe cl ear pr obabi l i tyof futur e per s ecut i on. Speci fi cal l y , the I J found thatther e w as no evi dence thatthe r obber i es of the chi l d’ s bi ke i n 1995 orof Pet i t i onerW ong’ s w al l etand other val uabl es byunknow n as s ai l ant s i n 2000, w er e mot i vat ed byethni ci tyorr el i gi on. B utt he I J al s o concl uded that , even i f the i nci dent s w er e ethni cal l yorr el i gi ous l ym ot i vat ed, t hey w er e nots uffi ci ent l ys ever e t o r i s e t o the l evel of per s ecut i on. T he I J al s o found thatt he W ongs di d nothave a w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on beca us e theys t i l l had fami l yi n I ndones i a w ho have notbeen ha r m ed. T he I J det erm i ned thatthe W ongs fai l ed t o pr ove a pa t t ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on of C hi nes e B uddhi s t s bythe I ndones i an g o v ern m en t. A cc o rdin g ly , the IJ d en ied W o n g ’s asy lum ap p li ca ti o n an d h is fam il y ’s der i vat i ve appl i cat i on. T he I J al s o deni ed w i thhol di ng of r emoval and C A T r el i ef; he not ed thatW ong di d nots eek vol unt arydepartur e.5

P eti ti o n ers a p p ea led. O n M arc h 2 3 , 2 0 0 7 , the B IA ad o p ted a n d af firm ed the IJ’s deci s i on and di s m i s s ed the appe al . T he B I A r ej ect ed W ong’ s cl ai m thatthe I J had not a f f o rd e d h im a n o p p o rtu n ityf o r a f a ir h e a rin g , n o tin g th a t th e IJ w a s a c tin g w ith in h is a u th o rityto e x a m in e a n d c ro ss -e x a m in e a lien s o r o th e r w itn e ss e s a t a h e a rin g . T h e IJ in W ong’ s pr ocee di ng di d notpr ej udi ce the out come of t he hea r i ng and, thus , di d notdeny W ong due pr oces s . T he B I A concl uded thatW ong fai l ed t o s how pas tper s ecut i on ort hat it w a s m o re lik e lyth a n n o t th a t h e w o u ld f a c e p e rse c u tio n o r to rtu re u p o n h is re tu rn to I ndones i a. Pet i t i oner s t i m el yappea l ed. W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew fi nal or der s of the B I A unders ect i on 2424( a) ( 1) of the IN A , 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a)(1). W h ere , as h ere , the B IA ex p resslyad o p ts th e IJ’s d ec isi o n an d rea so n ing p u rsua n t t o M att er o f B u rba n o , 2 0 I. & N . D ec . 8 7 2 , 8 7 4 (B IA 1 9 9 4 ), w e re v iew the d ec isi o n s o f b o th the IJ an d the B IA to d eterm ine w h ethe r th e B IA ’s deci s i on t o defe rt o the I J w as appr opr i at e. Shehu v. G onzal es , 482 F. 3d 652, 657 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). W e re v iew th e f a c tu a l f in d in g s o f

th e IJ, in c lu d in g a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty fin d ing s, fo r sub stan ti al ev iden ce . A b d u lr ah m an v . A sh cro ft, 3 3 0 F . 3 d 5 8 7 , 5 9 7 (3d C ir . 2003) . W e w i l l uphol d the fi ndi ngs i f theyar e “s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr ob a t i ve e vi de nc e on the r e c or d c on s i de r e d a s a w ho l e . ” I N S v. El i a s - Zac a r i a s , 50 2 U. S. 478, 481 ( 1992) . W e s houl d fi nd s ubs t ant i al evi dence l acki ng onl yw her e the evi dence “w as s o compel l i ng thatno r eas onabl e fa ct fi ndercoul d fai l t o fi nd the al i en el i gi bl e for asy lum o r w ith h o lding o f re m o v al. ” Id . at 48 3 -84 ; see a lso 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(4 )(B ).6

T o es t abl i s h “pas tper s ecut i on” and e nt i t l ementt o as y l um , W ong m us ts how : ( 1) an i nci dent , ori nci dent s , thatcons t i tut ed per s ecut i on; ( 2) thatoccurr ed on ac countof one of the s t atut or i l y - pr ot ect ed gr ounds ( i . e. , 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) ; and w hi ch ( 3) w er e comm i t t ed bythe governm entorfor ces the governm enti s ei therunabl e orunw i l l i ng t o contr ol . B er i s haj v. A shcroft , 37 8 F . 3d 31 4, 32 3 (3d C i r. 20 04 ). O ur contr oll i ng defini t i on of p ers ecuti on i s a narr ow on e– iti ncludes “t hreat s t o li fe, con fi nem ent, t orture, and econ om i c res tri ct i on s so s ever e thattheycons t i tut e a thr eatt o l i fe orfr eedom. ” Fat i n v. I N S, 12 F. 3d 1233, 1240 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 3 ). T h u s, “ p e rse c u tio n d o e s n o t en c o m p a ss a ll tre a tm e n t th a t o u r so c iety r egar ds as unfai r , unj us t , oreven unl aw ful oruncons t i tut i onal . ” Fat i n, 12 F. 3d at1240. T he A t t orneyG ener al m us tgr antw i thhol di ng of r emoval i f he “ deci des thatthe al i en’ s l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened” i n the countryof r emoval “bec aus e of the al i en’ 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 gr oup, orpol i t i cal o p in io n .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 (b )(3 )(A ). T h e a lien b e a rs th e b u rd e n o f p ro v in g th a t h e w ill m o re lik e ly th a n n o t f

a c e p e rs e c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f a p ro te c te d g ro u n d . See I N S v. St evi c, 467 U . S. 407, 429- 30 ( 1984) . “To m eetthi s t es t , the al i en mustdemonstr at e that ther e i s a gr eat er - than- fi fty - per centchanc e of pe r s ecut i on upon hi s orherr eturn. ” S enathi raj ah v . IN S , 15 7 F . 3d 21 0, 21 5 (3d C i r. 19 98 ). If the ali en can dem on strat e past per s ecut i on, thatfi ndi ng w i l l r ai s e a r ebutt abl e pr es um pt i on thatthe al i en’ s “l i fe or f r e e d o m w o u l d b e th r e a t e n e d i n th e f u tu r e . . . . ” 8 C. F . R. § 1 2 0 8 . 1 6 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( i ) . An7

appl i cantw ho has nots uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on m aydemonstr at e thathi s orherl i fe or freedom w ou l d b e t hreat ened i n the futur e i f t he ap pli cant es t abli shes that there i s a patt ern orpr 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 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, or pol i t i cal opi ni on. 8 C . F. R . § 208. 16( b) ( 2) ( i ) . T o qual i fyas a “pa t t ern orpr act i ce, ” the per s ecut i on m us tbe “s y s t emi c, pervas i ve, oror gani zed. ” Li e v. A s chcr oft , 396 F. 3d 530, 5 3 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T o pr evai l on a C A T cl ai m , an appl i cantm us t“es t abl i s h thati ti s m or e l i kel yt han notthathe ors he w oul d be t or tur ed i f r emoved t o the pr opos ed countryof r emoval . ” 8 C . F. R . § 208. 16( c) ( 2) . See al s o T our e v. A t t orneyG ener al of the U ni t ed St at es , 443 F. 3d 3 1 0 , 3 1 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). W ong chal l enges the I J ’ s deni al of hi s as y l um appl i cat i on, cl ai m i ng, among ot her thi ngs , thatthe t ot al i tyof the evi dence , i ncl udi ng the 2004 I nt ernat i onal R el i gi ous F re e d o m R e p o rt a n d h is c re d ib le te stim o n y , w a s s u f f icie n t to e sta b lish th a t h e a n d h is fami l ys uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on. A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at8- 12. T he B I A ’ s concl us i on that pet i t i oner s fai l ed t o es t abl i s h pas tper s ecut i on i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the rec o rd. O n ap p ea l, p eti ti o n ers c lai m that theysu ff ere d p ast p erse cu ti o n b ec au se th eyw ere h ara ssed , theyw ere rob b ed , an d o ther e thn ic C h ines e h o m es a n d b u sine sses w ere d e stro y e d d u rin g a rio t in 1 9 9 7 . A lth o u g h th e h a rm d e sc rib e d b yp e tit io n e rs is unfor tunat e, i tdoes notcons t i tut e pas tper s ecut i on. See Li e, 396 F. 3d at536 ( hol di ng t hat8

a n e th n i c Ch i n e s e I n d o n e s i a n ’ s a c c o u n to f two i s o l a t e d c r i mi n a l a c t s b yu n k n o wn a s s a i l a n t s , w h i c h r e s u l t e d o n l y i n th e th e f to f s o m e p e r s o n a l p r o p e r ty a n d a m i n o ri n j u r y, w as nots uffi ci ent l ys ever e t o cons t i tut e per s ecut i on) ; K onan v. A t t orneyG ener al , 432 F . 3d 49 7, 50 6 (3d C i r. 20 05 ) ( gen eral i zed law l essness and viol ence b et w een d i verse popul at i ons i s gener al l yi ns uffi ci entt o s how pas tper s ecut i on) ; Fat i n, 12 F. 3d at1243 ( “per s ecut i on i s an extr eme conceptthatdoes noti ncl ude eve rys or tof tr eatm entour so cietyreg ard s as o ff

en sive . ”). Pet i t i oner s al s o fai l ed t o demonstr at e thattheyw oul d m or e l i kel ythan notfac e p erse cu ti o n o n ac co u n t of their C h ines e e thn ici tyan d B u d d h istreli g ion u p o n their return to In d o n e sia . T h e re c o rd d o e s n o t sh o w th a t th e tre a tm e n t o f e th n ic C h in e se B u d d h ists in Indon esi a i s the resul tof g ov ernm ent act i on or acqu i escence, or that i tcon st i tutes a patt ern orpr act i ce of

per s ecut i on. T he W ongs fai l ed t o adduce evi dence thatw oul d have w a rra n ted a c o n tra ryc o n c lu sio n in th is c a se . In d e e d , W o n g h im se lf re tu rn e d to In d o n e sia w ith o u t i n cide n t fo r a f ive-m o n th p eriod in Ju ly2 0 0 2 , an d m em b ers o f h is an d h is w ife’s fami l i es cont i nue t o l i ve i n I ndones i a w i thouti nci dent . T hes e fa ct s t end t o l es s en the l i kel i hood thatW ong orhi s fami l yw oul d be s i ngl ed outforper s ecut i on i f theyr eturned to In d o n esia. S ee T o u re, 44 3 F . 3 d at 31 9 (cit ing H ak ee m v . IN S , 2 7 3 F . 3 d 8 1 2 , 8 1 6 (9 th C i r . 2001) ) . M or eover , the 2004 C ountryR eporti ndi cat ed thati ns t ance s of di s cr i m i nat i on and har as s m entof ethni c C hi nes e had de cl i ned compar ed w i th pr evi ous y ears .9

P eti ti o n ers’ arg u m en t th at th eir du e p roc ess righ ts w ere v iolated b ec au se th e IJ fai l ed t o r evi ew the ent i r e r ecor d, bas ed hi s deni al of thei rcl ai m s upon m er e s pecul at i on, an d m ad e li tt le m o re tha n a c u rsoryev alua ti o n o f th eir clai m s, is w ith o u t m erit . T h e IJ’s op i nion evidences i t s consi derat i on of the i nd i vidual ci rcum st ances o f t he p et i t i on ers ’ a p p lic a tio n s . S e e A b d u la i v . A s h c ro f t, 2 3 9 F .3 d 5 4 2 , 5 5 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). Fi nal l y , w i th r es pectt o t hei rC A T cl ai m , pet i t i oner s have f ai l ed t o demonstr at e that th e ya re lik e lyto b e to rtu re d b y , o r w ith th e a c q u ies c e n c e o f , g o v e rn m e n t o f

f icia ls if rem o v ed to In d o n esia. S ee 8 C . F . R . § § 1 2 0 8 . 1 6 (c), 1 2 0 8 . 1 8 (a). F o rth e f o r e g o i 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.