2007 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 3-7-2007 

# K u s um a 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 . 05-5369

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_2007

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 2007 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 " K us um a v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1516. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1516H o n o rab le D av id D . D o w d , Jr. , S en ior U n it ed S tat es D istri ct Ju d g e f o r th e N o rth ern * D i s tr i ctof O hi o, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NO T PRECEDEN TI 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 C as e N o. : 05- 5369 M O N A D E W I K U S U M A ,

P eti ti o n er, v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

______________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of Fi nal 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 B I A N o. : A 95- 144- 305 Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : M iriam K . M ill s

______________________ Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tR ul e L. A . R . 34. 1( a)

February16, 2007 B e f o re : S M IT H , F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudges , and D O W D , D i s tr i ctJ udge. * ( Fi l ed: M ar ch 7, 2007)

____________________ OP I NI ON

___________________ D O W D , Seni orU

ni t ed Stat es D is tr i ct

Judge .W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the fi nal or derof the B I A under8 U . S. C . § 1252. 1 W h e re , a s h e re , th e B IA a d o p ts th e o p in io n o f th e IJ , w e re v ie w th e d e c is io n o f th e IJ . G a o v . A sh c ro

ft , 2 9 9 F . 3 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). 2 Pet i t i onerM ona D ew i K us um a s eeks r evi ew of an or derof an I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) deny i ng herappl i cat i on for( 1) as y l um , ( 2) w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and ( 3) r el i ef underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) , an or derthatw as adopt ed and a ffi r m ed bythe B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) . W e w i l l denyK us um a’ s pet i t i on for r e v i e w. 1 M o n a De wi Ku s u ma i s a 4 3 - y e a r - o l d f e ma l e n a t i v e a n d c i t i z e n o f I n d o n e s i a . On A u g u st 31 , 2 0 0 1 K u su m a f il ed an ap p li ca ti o n fo r asy lum an d w ith h o lding o f re m o v al. In thatappl i cat i on, s he cl ai m ed t o have s uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on i n I ndones i a, and t o fea r futur e per s ecut i on ther e, beca us e s he i s a C hr i s t i an of Chi nes e ethni ci ty . Pet i t i oner cl ai m ed s he w as r obbed i n February2000 underthr eatof bei ng r aped a nd ki l l ed. She d e sc rib e d a n o th e r p e rso n a l as sa u lt d u rin g th e c iv il riotin g in Ja k a rta in M a y1 9 9 8 in w hi ch s he w as pul l ed fr om a van, s tr i pped nake d and s tr et ched outon a s i dew al k t o be raped spared o nlyw hen i tw as det erm i ned she w as having h er per i od . P et i t i on er al so s t at ed atthe hea r i ng, y etnoti n heras y l um appl i cat i on, thats he w as r aped i n 1988 dur i ng a r o b b e rya n d th a ts h e g a v e b i r th t o a d a u g h t e ra s a r e s u l t . Al l o f th e a t t a c k s Ku s u ma d e sc rib e d w e re p e rp e tra ted b yth e e th n ic m a jo rityin In d o n e sia , b ym e n w h o a re e th n ic pr i bum i s bybi r th.3

T h e IJ c o n c lu d e d th a t p e tit io n e r’s a sy lu m a p p lica tio n w a s tim e b a rre d b e c a u se it w a s f ile d m o re th a n o n e y e a r a f te r t h e a lie n ’s a rr iv a l in th e U n ite d S ta te s . 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (a )( 2 )( B ). W e la c k ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w th a t d e te rm in a tio n . 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (a )( 3 ). A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill d is m is s K u s u s m a ’s p e titio n to th e e x te n t it r e la te s to a s y lu m . P et i t i on er al so w ai ves argum ent concerni ng app eal of h i s C A T cl ai m for fai l ure t o rai se the mat t eri n herappea l . A ccor di ngl y , the pane l aff i r m s the dec i s i on of the I J t o deny re lie f o n th e C A T c la im . See N agl e v. A l

s pach , 8 F .3 d 1 4 1 , 1 4 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). T he r emai ni ng i s s ue i s di d t he I J corr ect l ydenyPet i t i oner ’ s r eques tfor w ith h o lding o f re m o v al pu rsua n t t o 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 3 1 (b)(3 )? T h e IJ f o u n d p eti ti o n er’s tes tim o n yn o t cr e d ib le d u e to in c o n sis ten c ies in th e tes tim o n y . T h e a f f id a v it file d in s uppor tof Pet i t i oner ’ s 2001 as y l um appl i cat i on cont ai ned no ment i on of the 1988 r ape thatl ed t o the bi r th of herchi l d. T he al l egat i on w as m ade tw o y ear s l at eri n a s uppl ement al aff

i davi t . T he C our tagr ees w i th the I J and the B I A thatt es t i m oni al i ncons i s t enci es , pr i m ar i l ythe omi s s i on of the r ape a l l egat i on fr om the as y l um appl i cat i on and K us um a’ s i nabi l i tyt o offe ra pl aus i bl e r eas on forthe omi s s i on “s tr i ke atthe hea r t ” of Pet i t i oner ’ s cr edi bi l i ty . A . R . 2. Fur ther , the C our tw oul d agr ee w i th the I J thatas s um i ng th e c re d ib ili tyo f

th e a lleg a tio n s, th e 1 9 8 8 in c id e n t an d th e ro b b e ryin 2 0 0 0 f a il t o es t abl i s h a t ar get ed ani m us bas ed on ethni ci tyorr el i gi on as the evi dence demonstr at ed th e yw e re ro b b e ri e s a n d ra n d o m v io le n t a tta c k s .4

T he I J cons i der ed K us um a’ s t es t i m onyas a w hol e i ncr edi bl e i ncl udi ng t es t i m ony offe r ed i n s uppor tof w hatthe I J r efe rr ed t o as the w or s tof the harm s al l eged, the M ay 1998 at t ack dur i ng the ci vi l r i ot s i n I ndones i a. T he C our ti s notw i l l i ng t o s aythatthe al l egat i on i t s el f i s unr el at ed t o ethni c s tr i fe. I ndeed, the I J not ed thatthe U . S. D epart m ent of St at e C ountr yR eport s on H um an R i ght s Pr act i ce f orI ndones i a for2003 r efe r s t o t he fa ct th at du ri n g the 1 9 9 8 ri o ts eth n ic C h ines e w o m en w ere targe ts fo r rap e, alth o u g h there i s no evi dence thattheyhave be en t ar get ed fors uch att acks bas ed on thei rethni ci tys i nce th a t tim e . W ith resp ec t t o the a ll eg ati o n s o f f u ture h arm , the IJ w rote a s to c u rren t cou n try con dit i on s: A s s um i ng ar guendo thats he w as cr edi bl e w i th r es pectt o the harm thats he su f f e re d in In d o n e sia , the e v id e n c e d o e s n o t sh o w th a t sh e w ill m o re lik e ly than notbe per s ecut ed bec aus e of he rethni ci tyand/ orr el i gi on i n l i ghtof the c o u n tryco n d it ion s as re p o rt ed b ythe D ep artm en t of S tat e in its C o u n try R e p o rts a n d R e lig io u s F re e d o m R e p o rt. A .R . 5 . T o o btai n w i thh oldi ng of rem ov al un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 23 1(b)( 3), an ali en m ust d em o n str ate a “c lear p rob ab il ity ” o f p erse cu ti o n ac co rdin g to o n e o f th e f ive s tatu tory groun ds, w hich i nclude ethni ci tyand rel i gion. In ot her w ords, the p et i t i on er m ust demonstr at e that“i ti s m or e l i kel ythan not ” thats he w oul d be s ubj ectt o s uch per s ecut i on if re tu rn e d to h e r n a tiv e la n d . I N S v. C ar doz a- Fons eca , 4 8 0 U. S . 4 2 1 , 4 3 0 ( 1 9 8 7 ) . On5

appea l , w e r evi ew the I J ’ s deni al of r el i ef t o det erm i ne i f the conc l us i on i s s uppor t ed by s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . I

N S v. E l i as - Zacar i as , 5 0 2 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 (1 9 9 2 ). T he I J di d noterri n concl udi ng thatK us um a had nots uffe r ed per s ecut i on i n the pas tas w e have defi ned thatt erm forthes e purpos es . I n Fa tin v . IN S , 12 F. 3d 1233 ( 3d C i r . 1993) , w e s t at ed that“the conc eptof per s ecut i on does notencompas s al l tr eatm ent that o u r soc ietyreg ard s as u n fa ir , u n just or ev en u n law fu l or u n co n sti tuti o n al. If p erse cu ti o n w ere d ef

ined that ex p an sive ly , a sig n ifi ca n t perc en tage o f th e w o rl d ’s popul at i on w oul d qual i fyforas y l um i n thi s country–and i ts eems mostunl i kel ythat C ongr es s i nt ended s uch a r es ul t . ” I d. a t 1 2 4 0 (f

o o tn o te o m itte d ). F o r th e m o st p a rt, K u su m a ’s e v id e n c e , if b e liev e d , sh o w e d v io len c e n o t risin g to the l evel of per s ecut i on as w e have defi ned i tperpetr at ed byfel l ow ci t i zens w hi ch w as notthe r es ul tof governm entact i on oracqui es cenc e. Ku s u ma a l s o a l l e g e d a v i c i o u s a t t a c k d u r i n g th e M a y1 9 9 8 c i v i l u n r e s t , a t i me w h e n th e re is e v id e n c e th a t C h in e se w o m e n w e re sin g led o u t f o r a ttac k b a se d o n th e ir ethni ci ty . T he I J found i ti ncr edi bl e thatpet i t i onercoul d r ecountthe gr aphi c det ai l s of the 1 9 9 8 e v e n t y e t n o t m e n tio n th e 1 9 8 8 a ttac k th a t led to th e b irth o f h e r c h ild . T h e IJ is in th e b e s t p o s itio n to a s s e s s a n a lie n ’s c re d ib ility. See C hen v. G onz al es , 434 F. 3d 212 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . I n t hi s cas e, ther e w as no document aryorotherevi dence offe r ed t o chal l enge th e IJ’ s f in d in g s. W e w ill su sta in a c h a llen g e to a n a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n o n ly w hen “a nyr eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o the contr ary ” of the6

IJ. 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )(4 )(B ); C h e n v . A sh c ro ft , 376 F. 3d 215, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . A ft er rev iew ing the re co rd a s a w h o le, w e c o n clud e tha t th e IJ’s d ec isi o n d en y ing K u su m a’s appl i cat i on bas ed on an a dver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on w as s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al e v id e n c e . Subst ant i al evi dence ther efor e s uppor t s the I J ’ s det erm i nat i on thatpet i t i onerfai l ed t o es t abl i s h thati ti s “more l i kel ythan not ” thats he w oul d be s ubj ectt o per s ecut i on i f s he w ere to return to In d o n esia. T h e re co rd d em o n str ates tha t m em b ers o f p eti ti o n er’s i m m edi at e fa m i l yr emai n i n I ndones i a and pr act i ce thei rr el i gi on w i thouthi ndr ance . See L ie v . A s h c ro f

t, 3 9 6 F .3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). A c c o rd in g ly , the p e tit io n f o r re v iew w ill b e D IS M IS S E D in so f a r a s it re late s to as y l um and w i l l be D E N I E D i ns ofaras i tr el at es t o w i thhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e.