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 11-21-2008 

# T ant ono 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 . 07-2242

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 " T ant ono v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 202. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/2021 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- 2242

___________ M I L AWAT I T ANT ONO, 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 P eti ti o n fo r R ev iew o f a n O rde r o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A N o. A 95- 370- 408) Im m i grat i on Judg e: D on al d F erl i se

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

N ovember20, 2008 B efore: F U E N T E S , H A R D IM A N , and G A R T H C i rcui tJudg es.

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: N ovember21, 2008)

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT2

FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge: M ilaw a ti T a n to n o , a n a tiv e a n d c iti z e n o f In d o n e sia , en ter e d th e U n ited S tate s in 2001, and s ubs equent l yappl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on under th e Co n v e n t i o n Ag a i n s tTo r tu r e ( CAT) . A Ca th o l i c o f Ch i n e s e d e s c e n t , Ta n t o n o c l a i ms thats he has a w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on i n I ndones i a bas ed on herr el i gi on and ethni ci ty . A s w e expl ai n bel ow , s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the B I A ’ s deni al of as y l um an d w ith h o lding o f re m o v al. W e a lso f ind that w e lac k juri sd ict ion to rev iew T an ton o ’s appl i cat i on forr el i ef unde rC A T . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l denyT ant ono’ s pet i t i on for r e v i e w. I. T ant ono w as born i n 1976 i n J akart a, I ndones i a. T ant ono ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es as a non- i m m i gr anti n J ul y2001 and over s t ay ed hervi s a. I n M ar ch 2002, s he w as pl ace d i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs . T ant ono conce ded r emovabi l i ty , butfi l ed an appl i cat i on 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 p ro te c tio n u n d e r C A T . I n herJ anuary2002 as y l um appl i cat i on, T ant ono al l eged di s cr i m i nat i on bythe I ndones i an governm entagai ns tethni cal l yC hi nes e I ndones i ans . I n an att ache d per s onal s t a t e me n t , T a n t o n o a l s o a l l e g e d th a td u r i n g th e 1 9 9 8 a n t i - Ch i n e s e r i o t s i n I n d o n e s i a , t wo fr i ends w er e r aped a nd herpar ent s ’ hous e w as “br oken and pl under ed” bynat i veInd o n esian ri o ters. (A p p . at 17 7 . ) I n M ay2003, T ant ono s ubm i t t ed a s econd a ffi davi tpr ovi di ng a new acc ountof theM edan i s near l y1000 m i l es nor th of J akart a. 1 3 e v e n ts th a t o c c u rre d d u rin g th e 1 9 9 8 rio ts. In h e r se c o n d a f f id a v it, T a n to n o a lleg e d th a t, o n M a y1 5 , 1 9 9 8 , a g ro u p o f e ig h t o r n in e “ In d o n e sia n n a tiv e m e n ,” in c lu d in g o n e in m i l i t arycl othi ng, br oke i nt o heroffi ce a nd s t ol e off i ce e qui pm ent . ( A pp. at141. ) T hr ee o f th e m e n d ra g g e d T a n tan o a n d th e o th e r tw o f e m a le e m p lo y e e s, b o th a lso e th n ica lly C h in e se , into a n o th e r ro o m w h e re th e yw e re b e a ten a n d ra p e d . T a n to n o sa w th e ra p ists i n s e r tb r o k e n g l a s s i n t o th e v a g i n a o f o n e o f th e wo me n a n d th r o w th e o th e rwo ma n d o wn a fl i ghtof s t ai r s . T ant ono l os tcons ci ous nes s , and fol l ow i ng the att ack w as hos pi t al i zed forthr ee da y s fori nj ur i es i ncl udi ng s er i ous vagi nal bl eedi ng. I n heraff i davi t , T ant ono exp l ai ned that s he d i d n ot m ake these al l egati on s i n h er i nit i al asy l um app l i cat i on becau se sh e w a s a sh a m e d th a t sh e w a s n o lo n g e r a v irg in . In su p p o rt o f h e r se c o n d a f

f id a v it, T ant ono s ubm i t t ed a medi cal not e dat ed M ay16, 1998 and a pol i ce r eportdat ed M ay30, 1998. T he medi cal not e i ndi cat es thatT ant ono s uffe r ed brui s i ng and vagi nal bl eedi ng an d that sh e w as to b e h o sp it ali ze d fo r th ree d ay s. T h e p o li ce rep o rtco n firm s T an ton o ’s accou nt of the att ack an d h er i njur i es. A ta hea r i ng befor e the I m m i gr at i on J udge, T ant ono t es t i fi ed cons i s t ent l yw i th her s econd a ffi davi t . T ant ono added a ddi t i onal cl ai m s of purpor t ed per s ecut i on i ncl udi ng r egul arhar as s m enton herw ayt o chur ch and f r equentr obber i es . T ant ono al s o t es t i fi ed thatfi ve mont hs aft erthe r i ot s , s he moved t o M edan, a ci tyi n nor thern Sum atr a, t o l i ve w i th heraunt . D ur i ng thi s per i od, T ant ono w as afr ai d t o l eave the hous e, butdi d tr avel 1B ecause the B IA did not expli ci t l yado pt the Im m i grat i on Judg e’s adv ers e 2 c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n w e a ss u m e th a t T a n to n o w a s c re d ib le f o r p u rp o se s o f

th is pet i t i on. J arbough v. A t t ’ yG en. of U . S. , 483 F. 3d 184, 191 ( 3d C i r . 2007) 4 to th e n e a rb yc o u n tries o f S in g a p o re , M a laysia, a n d T h a ilan d f o r a w e e k -lo n g v a c a tio n in 2000. T he I m m i gr at i on J udge found thatT ant ono w as notcr edi bl e bec aus e s he di d not di s cl os e heral l eged r ape i n heri ni t i al as y l um appl i cat i on, and bec aus e hercl ai m thats he w as afr ai d t o l eave heraunt ’ s hom e w as i ncons i s t entw i th heri nt ernat i onal tr avel . T he I m m i gr at i on J udge furtherfound that“[t ] her e i s abs ol ut el yno evi dence thatthe r ape of the re sp o n d en t atw o rk w as a n ything o ther tha n a v ici o u s crim inal ac t. ” (A p p . at 38 . ) T h e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e a lso f o u n d th a t T a n to n o liv e d w ith h e r a u n t f o r th re e y e a rs “ in t o t a l p e a c e , ” a n d th a t“ s h e wo u l d r e s ta l o te a s i e r ” i f s h e r e tu rn e d t o h e ra u n t ’ s h o me r atherthan t o J akart a. ( A pp. at39. ) T he B I A adopt ed the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s fi ndi ng thatT ant ono w oul d notbe el i gi bl e foras y l um even i f cr edi bl e. 2 II. “W e have pl enaryr evi ew overques t i ons of l aw , s ubj ectt o the pr i nci pl es of defe r ence art i cul at ed i n C hevr on v. N atur al R es our ces D efe ns e C ounci l , 467 U . S. 837, 844, 104 S. C t . 2778, 81 L . E d. 2d 694[ ] ( 1984) . ” W ong v. A t t ’ yG en. of U . S. , 539 F. 3d 2 2 5 , 2 3 1 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) ( c i t a t i o n s a n d i n t e rn a l q u o t a t i o n ma r k s o mi t t e d ) . Ho we v e r , we la c k ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w is s u e s th a t w e re n o t p re s e n te d to th e B IA . 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (d)(1 ); Jo sep h v . A tt ’yG en . o f U . S . , 4 6 5 F . 3 d 1 2 3 , 1 2 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ).5

W e re v ie w f

a c tu a l d e te rm in a tio n s u n d e r t h e s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s ta n d a rd . G abuni y a v. A t t ’ yG en. of U . S. , 463 F. 3d 316, 321 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . A ccor di ngl y , “w e may decl i ne t o uphol d the B I A ’ s fi ndi ngs onl yi f the evi dence compel s a contr aryconcl us i on. ” A hm ed v. A s hcr oft , 341 F. 3d 214, 216 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . B eca us e the B I A adopt ed port i ons o f th e Im m igrati o n Ju d g e’s o p inion , w e re v iew tho se p o rt ion s d ir ec tl y . Jarb o u g h v . A tt ’y G en . o f U . S . , 4 8 3 F . 3 d 1 8 4 , 1 9 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). III . T he A t t orneyG ener al m aygr antas y l um t o an al i en i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs i f the al i en es t abl i s hes thathe ors he i s a “r efuge e” unde rthe I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ct (I N A ). 8 U . S . C . § 1 15 8(a) , (b) . T he IN A defines “r efug ee” as: anyper s on w ho i s out s i de anycountryof s uch per s on’ s nat i onal i ty. . . and w ho i s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o r eturn t o, and i s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o avai l hi m s el f or h erse lf o f th e p rotec ti o n o f, th at co u n tryb ec au se o f p erse cu ti o n o r a w e l l - f o u n d e d f e a ro f p e r s e c u t i o n o n a c c o u n to f r a c e , r e l i g i o n , n a t i o n a l i ty, m e m b e rs h ip in a p a rt ic u la r s o c ia l g ro u p , o r p o litic a l o p in io n . . . . I d. § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) . T o es t abl i s h ent i t l ementt o w i thhol di ng of r emoval , an appl i cant m us ts how a “c l earpr obabi l i tyof per s ecut i on. ” I N S v. C ar doza- Fonse ca, 480 U . S. 421, 4 4 4 (19 8 7 ). T h e B IA a d o p ted th e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e ’s d e n ial o f T a n to n o ’s c laim f

o r a sy lu m to the ext enthe found thatT ant ono had bee n the vi ct i m of s tr eetcr i m e r atherthan ethni c or reli g iou s p erse cu ti o n , an d that sh e w o u ld b e a b le t o return saf elyto S u m atra. T h e C o u rt mu s ta f f i r m o n th e s e c o n d b a s i s , a s d i s c u s s e d b e l o w.T he governm entm ayal s o r ebuta cl ai m bas ed on a pa t t ern orpr act i ce of offi ci al 3 p e rs e c u tio n b ys h o w in g th a t in te rn a l r e lo c a tio n w o u ld b e re a s o n a b le . 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 . 1 3 (b)(3 )(i i) . 6 A. A n as y l um appl i cantw ho has demonstr at ed pas tper s ecut i on, i s pr es um ed t o have a w el l - founded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on. G abuni y a, 463 F. 3d at324. H ow ever , the governm entm ayr ebutthi s pr es um pt i on bypr ovi ng bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence thatthe appl i cant“coul d avoi d futur e per s ecut i on byr el ocat i ng t o anotherpartof the appl i cant ’ s countryof nat i onal i ty. . . and underal l the ci r cumst ance s , i tw oul d be rea so n ab le t o ex p ec t th e a p p li ca n t t o d o so . ” 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 3 (b)(1 )(i )(B ). In 3 e v a lu a tin g th e re a s o n a b le n e s s o f in te rn a l r e lo c a tio n , “ a d ju d ic a to rs s h o u ld c o n s id e r . . . w hetherthe appl i cantw oul d fac e others er i ous harm i n the pl ace of s ugges t ed r el ocat i on; anyongoi ng ci vi l s tr i fe w i thi n the country ; admi ni s tr at i ve, economi c, orj udi ci al i nfr as tructur e; geogr aphi cal l i m i t at i ons ; and s oci al and cul tur al cons tr ai nt s , s uch as age, g e n d e r, h e a lth , a n d s o c ia l a n d f a m ilia l tie s .” 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 3 (b )( 3 ). T an ton o test ifi ed that sh e li v ed saf elyw ith h er a u n t fo r th ree y ea rs i n N o rth ern S u m a tra b e f

o re c o m in g to th e U n ited S tate s. W h ile T a n to n o tes tifie d th a t sh e w a s a f ra id dur i ng thi s per i od, s he admi t t ed thatnothi ng happene d t o heri n Sum atr a. T ant ono p ro v id e d n o e v id e n c e su g g e stin g th a t sh e w a s in d a n g e r in S u m a tra . A c c o rd in g ly , ev e n if T ant ono w er e the vi ct i m of pas tper s ecut i on i n J akart a, orhad es t abl i s hed a pa t t ern or p ra c tice o f

p e rse c u tio n o f

C h in e se C h ristia n s in In d o n e sia , the re is s u b sta n tial e v id e n c e to7

su p p o rt th e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e ’s f in d in g th a t sh e c o u ld sa f e lya n d re a so n a b lyre tu rn to S u m a tr a . T h u s , th e Im m ig ra tio n J u d g e p ro p e rl yd e n ie d T a n to n o ’s a s y lu m a p p lic a tio n . F o r th e sa m e re aso n , w e f ind that the Im m igrati o n Ju d g e p rop erlyd en ied T an ton o ’s w i thhol di ng of r emoval appl i cat i on. W e a lso h o ld th a t w e lac k ju risd ictio n o v e r T a n to n o ’s C A T c laim b e c a u se sh e d id notappea l thi s i s s ue t o the B I A . J os eph, 465 F. 3d at126. I n anyevent , ourconcl us i on th a t T a n to n o c a n s a f

e ly re tu rn to S u m a tr a is in c o n s is te n t w ith re lie f u n d e r C A T . III . 

### For the for e goi ng r e a s ons , we wi l lde ny Tant ono’ s pe t i t i on and a ffi rm the de c i s i on o f th e B IA .