2009 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 6-1-2009 

# H alim H andok

o 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 . 08-2396

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_2009

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 2009 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
" H al im H ando ko v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1257. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1257NOT 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. 08- 2396

___________ HAL I M HANDO KO, 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

__________________________ Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 96 267 550) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M iriam K . M ill s

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

M ay20, 2009 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 ( Fi l ed J une 1, 2009)

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ P E R C UR I AM H al i m H andoko pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a Boar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) d e c isio n d ism iss in g h is a p p e a l o f th e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e ’s ( “ IJ” ) d e c isio n d e n y in g h is2

a p p l i c a t i o n s f

o rr e l i e f f r o m r e mo v a l . 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. H a n d o k o is a n a tiv e a n d c iti z e n o f In d o n e sia . H e c a m e to th e U n ited S tate s in 2 0 0 2 a s a v isito r. In 2 0 0 3 , the Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tu ra liza tio n S e rv ice iss u e d a n o tice to appea rchar gi ng thatH andoko w as s ubj ectt o r emoval beca us e he s t ay ed i n the U ni t ed St at es l ongerthan author i zed. T hr ough couns el , H andoko conc eded hi s r emovabi l i tyand app l i ed fo r as y l um , w i thh oldi ng of rem ov al , and rel i ef un der the C on ven t i on A gainst T o rt u re . H a n d o k o , w h o is C h in e se , tes tifie d th a t h e w a s a B u d d h ist w h e n h e liv e d in In d o n e s ia , a n d th a t h e b e c a m e a C h ri s tia n in 2 0 0 3 , w h ile liv in g in th e U n ite d S ta te s . H a n d o k o sta ted th a t h e w o u ld h a v e p ro b lem s p ra c ticin g C h ristia n ityif h e re tu rn e d to I ndones i a bec aus e the chur ch thathe us ed t o att end w as burned dow n, and ther e have been di ffi cul t i es r ebui l di ng the chur ch. H andoko expl ai ned that , al though he w as B uddhi s tw hen he l i ved i n I ndones i a, he w entt o a C hr i s t i an chur ch bec aus e he w as l earni ng C hr i s t i ani tyw i th hi s daught er . H e s t at ed thathe had no pr obl em pra ct i ci ng C hr i s t i ani tyi n I ndones i a. H andoko al s o t es t i fi ed thathe w oul d cont i nue t o pr act i ce C hr i s t i ani tyi f he r eturns t o I ndones i a, butthathe w oul d have t o go t o chur ch i n a gr oup b e c a u s e n a tiv e In d o n e s ia n s w o u ld th re a te n h im if h e w e n t to c h u rc h a lo n e . H a n d o k o f

u rt h e r t e s tif

ie d th a t h e h a d p ro b le m s in In d o n e s ia b e c a u s e h e is C h in e s e . H e e x p lai n ed that in 1 9 7 5 h e w as re q u ir ed to p ayh igh er f ee s an d p rov ide m o re d o c u m e n ta tio n th a n n a tiv e In d o n e s ia n s in o rd e r t o o b ta in a n a tio n a l id e n tif ic a tio n c a rd .3

H andoko s t at ed thaton M ay13, 1998, he w i tnes s ed r i ot i ng i n J akart a aga i ns tthe C hi nes e, w hi ch occ urr ed i n the r es i dent i al compl ex w her e he l i ved. H andoko s t at ed thatthe
m aj or i tyof r es i dent s , i ncl udi ng hi m s el f, w entt o s t ayi n a hot el w her e ther e w as bett er s e c u r i ty . Af

t e ra mo n th , Ha n d o k o r e tu rn e d t o th e c o mp l e x a n d d i s c o v e r e d th a th i s h o me a n d m o st o f

h is n e ig h b o rs’ h o m e s h a d b e e n b u rn e d d o w n . H a n d o k o liv e d w ith h is p a re n ts and s ol d the pr opertyw her e hi s hom e had be en i n 2002, a mont h befor e comi ng t o the U n ite d S ta te s . H andoko t es t i fi ed thataft erthe r i ot s the C hi nes e w er e the t ar get s of s tr eetcr i m e, a n d th a t th e C h in e s e h a d to p a yh ig h e r f e e s to th e p o lic e to in v e s tig a te s u c h c ri m e s . H and ok o fu rther st at ed thathe d i d n ot l eave C hina for fou r y ears aft er the ri ots becau se onl yhe and hi s w i fe w er e gr ant ed vi s as , and thathe nee ded t o s uppor thi s chi l dr en, w ho
w er e s t i l l i n s chool . H andoko t es t i fi ed thathe s t i l l fea r s thathe w i l l be harm ed i f he
r eturns t o I ndones i a. H andoko s t at ed thattw o day s befor e the hea r i ng hi s daught er , w ho l i ves i n Indo nesi a, t old hi m that s he w as r ob bed atkn i fe po i nt on a bu s. O n crosse x a m in a tio n , H a n d o k o sta ted th a t th e re w e re o th e r m in o r in c id e n ts th a t h a p p e n e d to h im and hi s fami l yw hen he l i ved i n I ndones i a, i ncl udi ng “r obber i es , m uggi ngs and fr auds . ” A .R . a t 1 4 4 . T he I J found H andoko notcr edi bl e “i n s i gni fi cantpart ” w i th r egar d t o hi s bei ng a C hr i s t i an i n I ndones i a, not i ng thathi s t es t i m onyw as uncl earand i ncons i s t ent . I J ’ s D ec. at13. T he I J expl ai ned thatH andoko t es t i fi ed thathe had no pr obl ems pr act i ci ng4

C hr i s t i ani tyi n I ndones i a, thathe al s o s poke aboutB uddhi s m , and thathe di d not adequa t el yexpl ai n w hyhe had t o go t o chur ch i n a gr oup t o be s afe . T he I J s t at ed that H andoko mi s l ed the courtbys t at i ng i n hi s as y l um appl i cat i on thathe had f ace d m any p ro b lem s in In d o n e sia a s a C h ristia n . T h e IJ a lso n o ted th a t H a n d o k o d id n o t ad e q u a tely exp l ai n w hyhe d i d n ot pr ov i de h i s gov ernm ent i den t i fi cat i on card, w hich r ecords a p e rso n ’s r e lig io n . T h e IJ b e liev e d th a t H a n d o k o d e lib e ra telyo m itt e d th e c a rd b e c a u se it
w oul d have e s t abl i s hed thathe w as a B uddhi s ti n I ndones i a. I n addi t i on, the I J s t at ed that H a n d o k o d id n o t ex p lain w h yh e f a iled to p ro d u c e e v id e n c e th a t h is f a m ilyin In d o n e sia
w e re C h ristia n s. A lth o u g h H a n d o k o h a d tes tifie d th a t h is c h ild re n c o n v e rte d to C hr i s t i ani ty , hi s daught er ’ s governm enti dent i fi cat i on car d r efl ect ed thats he w as B u d d h is t, a n d h is d a u g h te r d id n o t s ta te th a t s h e is C h ri s tia n in a le tte r t o th e c o u rt . T h e IJ a lso n o ted th a t H a n d o k o d id n o t re p o rt a n yh a rm b yn a tiv e In d o n e sia n s in hi s as y l um appl i cat i on oron di r ectexami nat i on, otherthan the l os s of hi s hom e dur i ng the M ay1 9 9 8 ri o ts an d g o v ern m en tal d iscri m ination in o b tai n ing d o cu m en ts. T h e IJ sta ted th a t o n c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n H a n d o k o sta ted f o r th e f irst tim e th a t h e w a s th e v ictim
o f c rim e b yn a tiv e In d o n e sia n s. T h e IJ b e liev e d th a t H a n d o k o w a s e m b e lli sh in g h is cl ai m . T he IJ further st at ed that , even i f H and ok o an d h i s daug hterw ere r ob bed , these i nci dent s di d notr i s e t o the l evel of per s ecut i on, and H andoko di d notes t abl i s h thatt he robberi es w ere r el at ed to theiret hn i ci tyor al l eged rel i gion. T he IJ al so fou nd that the loss of H andoko’ s hom e dur i ng the r i ot s w as nots o s ever e gi ven thathe cont i nued t o l i ve andT he B I A not ed thatH andoko di d notchal l enge the I J ’ s deni al of r el i ef unde rthe 1 C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e. T hi s rul i ng i s notati s s ue. 5 w or k i n I ndones i a forfoury ear s befor e comi ng t o the U ni t ed St at es . Fi nal l y , the I J not ed that this C ou rthad fou nd no patt ern or pract i ce of persecut i on againstethn i c C hinese C hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a, and thatther e have been f ur theri m pr ovement s betw een the governm entand ethni c C hi nes e, as r efl ect ed i n the 2005 U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof St at e C ountr yR eport . T he I J deni ed H andoko’ s appl i cat i ons forr el i ef f r om r emoval b a se d o n th e a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyf in d in g a n d , alte rn a tiv e ly , H a n d o k o ’s f a ilu re to sa tisf

yh is bur den of pr oof. T h e B IA ad o p ted a n d af firm ed the IJ’s d ec isi o n . T h e B IA rejected H an d o k o ’s
c h a llen g e s to th e IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyf in d in g a n d c o n c lu d e d th a t, i n a n ye v e n t, H andoko w as unabl e t o s how thatthe al l eged ha r m s amount ed t o pas tper s ecut i on. T he B I A al s o r ej ect ed H andoko’ s cl ai m thatthe I J vi ol at ed hi s due pr oces s r i ght s bynot d e c id in g w h e th e r h e h a d a w e ll-fo u n d e d f e a r o f f u tu re p e rse c u tio n . T h e B IA n o ted th a t it d id n o t entertain c o n sti tuti o n al ch all en g es, th at th ere w as n o p resu m p ti o n o f f u ture p erse cu ti o n w h ere h e h ad n o t est ab li sh ed p ast p erse cu ti o n , an d that h e w as u n ab le t o ca rry hi s bur den of pr oof on thi s i s s ue gi ven the fi ndi ngs of fa ct , i ncl udi ng the i m pr oved countrycondi t i ons . T hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew fol l ow ed. 1 

### Were view fact

ual finding s, includ ing adv er secr edibil it y find ings, for substantia l ev id en ce. Ab du lrahm anv . A sh cro f t, 3 3 0 F .3 d5 8 7 , 5 9 7 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 3 ). U nderthe subst anti al evidence st and ard of revi ew , factual det erm i nati on s w i l l be u ph el d u nles s a6

r eas onabl e fa ct fi nderw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o the contr ary . I d. H and ok o argue s that the IJ’ s adverse cr edibi l i tydeterm i nati on w as erroneou s, cont endi ng, among ot herthi ngs , thathe t es t i fi ed thathe w as bapt i zed i n the U ni t ed St at es i n 2003, thathe w as cons i der ed a Buddhi s ti n I ndones i a, and thathe att ended a C hr i s t i an chur ch w i th hi s daught er . H e s t at es thathe t es t i fi ed thati f he r eturns t o I ndones i a he
w oul d be al l ow ed t o att end a Chri s t i an chur ch, buthe w oul d have t o tr avel i n a gr oup for fear that l ocal M usl i m s w ou l d p reventhim from enter i ng the ch urch. H and ok o als o c o n c e d e s in h is b rie f

th a t th e re w a s n o e v id e n c e th a t th e ro b b e rie s o f h im se lf a n d h is daught erw er e on ac countof a pr ot ect ed gr ound, and he a r gues that , beca us e the r obber i es a re irre lev a n t, th e ir o m iss io n f ro m h is a sy lu m a p p lica tio n w a s n o t a b a sis f o r f in d in g h im
n o t c re d ib le . W e nee d notaddr es s the adve r s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng i n thi s cas e bec aus e s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the I J ’ s al t ernat i ve conc l us i on that , even i f cr edi bl e, H andoko di d not
s at i s fyhi s bur den of pr oof t o es t abl i s h pas tper s ecut i on. T he B I A al s o concl uded that H a n d o k o w a s u n a b le to s h o w th a t th e a lle g e d h a rm s a m o u n te d to p a s t p e rs e c u tio n . H andoko di d notes t abl i s h pas tper s ecut i on bas ed on hi s r el i gi on. H e t es t i fi ed thathe had no pr obl ems pr act i ci ng C hr i s t i ani tyi n I ndones i a. T he r ecor d al s o does notcompel the
c o n c lu s io n th a t H a n d o k o s u f f e re d p a s t p e rs e c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f h is C h in e s e e th n ic ity. W hi l e the l os s of H andoko’ s hom e i s unfor tunat e, thi s l os s occurr ed dur i ng the M ay1998 ri o ts i n Jak arta d u ri n g a p eriod o f g en era l un rest. H an d o k o li v ed in Ja k arta fo r fo u r y ea rsH andoko al s o has nots how n t hatthe r ecor d compel s a contr aryconcl us i on. See 2 W o n g v . A tt o rne yG en era l, 5 3 9 F . 3 d 2 2 5 , 2 3 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) (st ati n g that the p eti ti o n er’s cl ai m of a w el l
- founded f earof per s ecut i on w as underm i ned w her e herfami l ys t i l l l i ved in In d o n esia a n d p rac ti ce d C atho li cism ). 7 aft erthe M ay1998 r i ot s and s uffe r ed no furtherharm on acc ountof hi s ethni ci tyor r el i gi on. See Lengkong v. G onzal es , 478 F. 3d 859, 862 ( 8th C i r . 2007) ( hol di ng att ack on pet i t i oner ’ s hom e dur i ng M ay1998 r i ot s i n J akart a w oul d nots uppor ta cl ai m of p e rs e c u tio n ). H an d o k o also arg u es th at his d u e p roc ess righ ts w ere v iolated b ase d o n the IJ’s f a ilu re to a d

ju d ica te w h e th e r h e h a s a w e ll-fo u n d e d f e a r o f p e rse c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f h is
r el i gi on orethni ci ty . W e di s agr ee. T he I J not ed H andoko’ s t es t i m onythathi s chi l dr en h a d e x p e rie n c e d n o p ro b lem s in In d o n e sia sin c e h e lef t o th e r th a n th e ro b b e ryo f h is daught er , and thatthe l ack of pr obl ems di m i ni s hed “a nyexpr es s ed w el l
- founded f earfor hi m . ” I J ’ s D ec. at17. T he I J al s o r ecogni zed, i n the cont extof not i ng thatther e w as no patt ern and pr act i ce of

per s ecut i on agai ns tethni c C hi nes e C hr i s t i ans , the i m pr oved
r el at i ons betw een the governm entand ethni c C hi nes e ci t i zens . T he B I A al s o found that the I J ’ s fi ndi ngs r egar di ng i m pr oved countrycondi t i ons w er e s uppor t ed bythe r ecor d and concl uded thatH andoko di d notes t abl i s h a w el l
- founded f earof per s ecut i on. 2 Ac c o r d i n g l y , 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.