2006 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 2-9-2006 

# M ogot 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 . 04-4461

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_2006

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 2006 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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
" M o g ot v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1609. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1609NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL
I N TH E 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 S. 04- 4461 and 05- 1278
M U T A L IB M O G O T ; D IA N A A N G G R IA N I E M M IW S A R I, 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; S E CR E T AR Y, DE P AR T M E NT OF HOMEL AND S E CU RI T Y, R e sp o n d e n ts

O n P e tit io n f

o r R e v iew o f

O rd e rs o f

th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls N os . A 95- 468- 198 & A 95- 468- 199 I m m i gr at i on J udge: H on. R . K . M al l oy Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary23, 2006 B E F O R E : R E N D E L L and S T A P L E T O N , C i rcui tJudg es,

and PO L L A K , * D i s t r i ctJ udge ( Fi l ed: February9, 2006 )

* H on. L oui s H . Pol l ak, U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tJ udge forthe East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.W e conc l ude thatw e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew both t he O ct ober29 and D ece m ber 1 3 0 , 2 0 0 4 , o r d e r s o f

t h e BI A. 2

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udge:
P eti ti o n er M u tal ib M o g o t ( “M o g o t”) an d h is w ife, D iana A n g g ri an i E m m iw S ari ( “M s . Sar i ”) , ( “pet i t i oner s ”) ar e nat i ves and ci t i zens of I ndones i a. T heypet i t i on for
r e v i e w o f

a Bo a r d o f

I mmi g r a t i o n Ap p e a l s ( “ BI A” ) o r d e rd e n y i n g th e m a s y l u m,
w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l, an d re lief

u n d e r th e C o n v e n tio n A g a in st T o rtu re A c t. W e w ill denyt he pet i t i on. 1 M o g o t tes tifie d th a t h e w a s ra ise d in th e M u slim f a ith b u t co n v e rte d to C h ristia n ity in 1 9 8 2 . A s a re su lt, h is M u slim f a m ilyc o n sid e re d h im to b e in sa n e a n d h a d h im i nvol unt ar i l ycomm i t t ed t o a s ani t ar i um w her e he t es t i fi ed he w as beat en, drugged and hel d i n i s ol at i on forfai l i ng t o r enounce hi s new fai t h. A ft erthr ee mont hs of abus e, he
es cape d and moved el s ew her e i n I ndones i a, w or ki ng fora s er i es of oi l compani es . H e
m arr i ed M s . Sar i i n 1985 and theyl i ved uneve nt ful l yon B at am unt i l M s . Sar i r eturned
a l o n e t o J a k a r t a t o v i s i th e rf a mi l yi n 1 9 9 7 . W h i l e o n th a tv i s i t , s h e wa s a b d u c t e d f r o m a J akart a s uperm arketparki ng l oti nt o a van.3

M s . Sar i t es t i fi ed thatonce i ns i de the van, herabduct or s t i ed and bl i ndfol ded her and t ol d hert hats he and he rhus band mustr eturn t o I s l am. W hen s he t ol d t hem she w as b o rn C h ri sti an , theysaid “Y o u are M o g o t’ s w ife, he m u st r eturn to Islam !” M s. S ari f u rth e r te stif

ied th a t th e yth re a ten e d to k ill b o th h e r a n d h e r h u sb a n d if h e d id n o t re tu rn to Is la m . H e r a b d u c to rs re le a s e d h e r i n a b o u t th re e h o u rs , a n d s h e w e n t to th e p o lic e s ta tio n . O nce a tt he pol i ce s t at i on, how ever , s he dec i ded i tw as us el es s t o r epor tthe i nci dent becau se al l of the off

i cers w ere M usl i m s. A c c o rd in g to M o g o t’s p e tit io n f o r a sy lu m , h e b e liev e s th a t, i f h e is re tu rn e d to I n d o n e s i a , h i s f

a mi l ywi l l s e a r c h f

o rh i m a n d p l a c e b o t h h i m a n d h i s wi f e i n a s a n i t a r i u m. P e tit io n e rs f

u rth e r te stif

ied th a t, i n th e c o u rse o f rio tin g in M a rc h o f

1 9 9 8 , the ir hous e w as bur ned bypeopl e fr om a mosque. T heydi d notr epor tthe i nci dentt o t he pol i ce. Pet i t i oner s r emai ned i n I ndones i a unt i l 2000 w hen theym anage d t o getvi s i t or vi s as t o come t o t he U ni t ed St at es . M ogotcame fi r s ti n N ovember , 2000. O n C hr i s t m as day , 2000, M s . Sar i t es t i fi ed thats he att ended a C hr i s t i an chur ch thatw as bom bed dur i ng t he s ervi ce. M s . Sar i l eftfort he U ni t ed St at es i n February , 2001. T he I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) concl uded thatpet i t i oner s had fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h that t heys uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on on acc ountof anyof the fi ve enumer at ed gr ounds orthat th e yw o u ld s u f

f e r f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n o n a n yo f s u c h g ro u n d s if

th e yre tu rn e d to In d o n e s ia
. T h e B IA c o n c u rre d in th is ju d g m e n t. T he I J cr edi t ed M ogot ’ s t es t i m onythathe w as r ai s ed a M us l i m , thathe conve r t edPet i t i oner s di d nots eek r el i ef on the bas i s of per s ecut i on on ethni ci t ygr ounds
. G i ven 2 t he otherconcl us i ons of the I J , how ever , theyw oul d nothave be en ent i t l ed t o t hatr el i ef even i f theyhad made t hi s cl ai m . A s w e expl ai ned i n L ie v . A sh c ro ft , 396 F. 3d 530, 537 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ): T h e 1 9 9 9 C o u n tryR ep o rto n Ind o n esia ind icated that there w as a sh arp decl i ne i n vi ol ence agai ns tC hi nes e C hr i s t i ans fol l ow i ng the per i od of i nt ens e vi ol ence i n 1998, and not ed thatthe I ndones i an governm ent offi ci al l ypr om ot es r el i gi ous and ethni c t ol er ance . M or eover , thi s vi ol ence se e m s to h a v e b e e n p rim a rilyw ro u g h t b yf e llo w c iti z e n s a n d n o t th e re su lt of governm ent al act i on oracqui es cenc e. 4 t o Ch r i s t i a n i t y , t h a th i s f a mi l ywa s v e r ya n g r ya s a r e s u l t , a n d th a th i s u n c l e a n d two br ot her s had had hi m i nvol unt ar i l ycomm i t t ed t o a s ani t ar i um w her e he s uffe r ed thr ee
m on t hs of a bu se becau se of h i s new fai t h. T he IJ concluded , ho w ever, that this abu se “w as br oughtaboutbyhi s fami l yand notbythe G overnm ent , ” I J O p. , A pp. at29- 30, and,
acc or di ngl y , t hatt he C our tcoul d not“fi nd thatthe pl ace m entof [M ogot ] i n a s ani t ar i um
w as [pas t ] per s ecut i on” foras y l um purpos es . I J O p. , A pp. at30. T he I J al s o cr edi t ed the t es t i m onyaboutthe 1998 hous e burni ng, the 2000 chur ch bo m bing, and t he 1 99 7 ab du ct i on of M s. S ari
. H e rej ect ed, ho w ever, the n oti on that M s. S ari ha d b ee n ab d u cted b ec au se sh e w as th e w ife o f M o g o t, ex p lai n ing that the a b d u ctors coul d have ha d no w ayof know i ng w ho s he w as gi ven thateven M ogot ’ s fami l ydi d not know heri dent i t y . T he I J t hen s pecul at ed that“i f ther e w as a r eas on r el at ed t o an
enumer at ed gr ound i tw oul d be thattheythoughtthatthe w i fe w as C hi nes e and pe r haps t hati s w hyt heyki dnapped he r . ” I J O p. , A pp. at31. 2 W i t h r es pectt o t he abduc t i on, hous e burni ng and chur ch bombi ng, the I J hel d, as5

in th e c a se o f

th e sa n itariu m in c id e n t, th a t M o g o t an d M s. S a ri h a d “ f a iled to d e m o n stra te t hatt heys uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on on acc ountof anyof the enumer at ed gr ounds bythe G o v e rn m e n t o f

In d o n e s ia o r a n a g e n c yu n d e r t h e c o n tr o l o f th e G o v e rn m e n t.” IJ O p ., A pp. at33. W hi l e the I J acknow l edged r i ot i ng i nvol vi ng at t acks byM us l i m s on C hr i s t i ans and C hr i s t i ans on M us l i m s , he found thatthe governm entof I ndones i a w as not
res po nsi ble for this ri oti ng and did not pers ecute C hri st i ans. Fi nal l y , t he I J concl uded thatthe r ecor d s ugges t ed that , w hen M ogotand hi s w i fe came t o t he U ni t ed St at es , t heyw er e notconce r ned aboutper s ecut i on i n I ndones i a, but rather w ere m oti vated byecon om i c op po rtun i t yi n the U nit ed S t at es: T h e R e sp o n d e n t w a s g a in f u llye m p lo y e d d u rin g h is e n tire lif e tim e in I ndones i a, hi s r el i gi on nevers eemed t o be a f act ori n obt ai ni ng e mp l o yme n t , h e wo r k e d f o rma j o rc o mp a n i e s , o i l d r i l l i n g c o mp a n i e s . He al s o w as pr om ot ed t o a r es pons i bl e pos i t i on, one pos i t i on he managed or s upervi s ed 300 w or ker s and, y es , ther e w as r es entm entperhaps bys om e of th e M u slim w o rk e rs, h o w e v e r, th a t d id n o t sto p h im f ro m b e in g p ro m o ted to t hatpos i t i on. T he R es pondentw as notfi r ed fr om thi s pos i t i on, he r es i gned i n or dert o t r avel t o t he U ni t ed St at es t o obt ai n w or k i n t he U ni t ed St at es and thi s s t at ementi s bor n outbythe l ett er s of r efe r ence he obt ai ned fr om empl oy er s , l et t er s w hi ch he c oul d pr ovi de t o empl oy er s i n t he U ni t ed St at es a n d so , as sta ted e a rlier , ita p p e a rs th e p u rp o se o f th e R e sp o n d e n ts trip to t he U ni t ed St at es w as foreconomi c r eas ons , ther e w as s uffi ci entevi dence in th e re c o rd , b a c k g ro u n d m a ter ials in In d o n e sia to re f lec t f o r e c o n o m ic s i tuat i on i n I ndones i a, w hi ch i s pr om ot i ng the outw ar d m i gr at i on of m any I ndones i ans t o ot hercountr i es t o s eek e m pl oym entand bett erl i fe. I J O p. , A pp. at35. Pet i t i oner s i ns i s tt hatt he fa ct s acc ept ed bythe I J cons t i tut e pas tper s ecut i on on t he gr ound of r el i gi on and thatt heyar e ther efor e ent i t l ed t o a pr es um pt i on thattheyhave a6

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 o n th a t g ro u n d sh o u ld th e yb e re tu rn e d to I ndones i a. T heycont end thatper s ecut i on i nfl i ct ed byfami l ym ember s i s r el evant p e rse c u tio n if

th e g o v e rn m e n t is u n a b le o r u n w ill in g to c o n tro l it
. S u b sta n tial e v id e n c e su p p o rts th e c o n c lu sio n s re a c h e d b yth e IJ. T h e S tate D epart m ent ’ s 2001 C ount r yR epor ti ndi cat es thatthe I ndones i an C ons t i tut i on guar ant ees
re lig io u s f

re e d o m a n d th a t th e In d o n e sia n g o v e rn m e n t re sp e c ts th is rig h t. Itsp e c if ica lly
n o t e s t h a tt h e g o v e r n me n td o e s n o tt a r g e to ru s e v i o l e n c e a g a i n s tc o n v e rt s t o o rf r o m a p a rticu lar re lig io n . M o g o t’s e x p e rie n c e w a s c o n sis ten t w ith th is re p o rt. H e re m a in e d in I ndones i a forei ght een y ear s aft erhi s es cape fr om the s ani t ar i um , dur i ng w hi ch t i m e he freel ypract i ced h i s r el i gion, m arr i ed a C hri st i an w om an, and had a successful bu si ness
c a re e r. S im ilarly , the re c o rd re f lec ts th a t M s. S a ri p ra c tice d h e r re lig io n in In d o n e sia
w i t houtadver s e cons equenc es fr om 1965 t o 1997 and forthr ee y ear s aft erher1997 abduct i on. W hi l e i ti s t rue thatper s ecut i on byfami l ym ember s m aybe r el evantforas y l um p u rp o se s u n d e r so m e c irc u m sta n c e s w h e n th e g o v e rn m e n t is u n a b le o r u n w ill in g to contr ol i t , t he pet i t i oner s had the bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng thei rel i gi bi l i t yforthe r el i ef they
s o u g h t, A b d ill e v . A sh c ro ft , 2 4 2 F .3 d 4 7 7 , 4 8 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ), an d , as th e IJ c o rre c tly
c o n c lu d e d , the yf

a iled to c a rryth a t b u rd e n . T h e re is n o e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd th a t w o u ld
s uppor ta fi ndi ng t hatany one as s oci at ed w i t h t he governm enteven kne w anyt hi ng about t he abus e thatM ogots uffe r ed i n t he s ani t ar i um , m uch l es s thatthe governm entw as7

u n wi l l i n g o rs o me h o w u n a b l e t o p r o t e c th i m. Si m i l ar l y , as t he I J corr ect l yconcl uded, ther e i s no evi dence i n t he r ecor d t hat
w oul d s uppor ta conc l us i on t hatt he I ndones i an governm enthad anyt hi ng t o do w i t h the 1997 abduct i on, t he burni ng of the hous e, orthe bombi ng of the chur ch, orthati tw as
u n w illin g o r u n a b le to c o n tr o l w h o m e v e r i t w a s th a t w a s re s p o n s ib le f o r t h o s e in c id e n ts . A s w e have not ed, none of the i nci dent s r el i ed upon bythe pet i t i oner s w as r epor t ed t o the authori t i es. A cc o rdin g ly , w e c o n clud e tha t th e re co rd su p p o rt s the IJ’s an d the B IA ’s concl us i on t hatpet i t i oner s fai l ed t o demonstr at e thattheys uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on, or
re a so n a b lyf

e a re d f u tu re p e rse c u tio n , o n g ro u n d s o f re lig io n h a v in g a n yth in g to d o w ith t he governm entof I ndones i a. Pet i t i oner s thus di d notes t abl i s h t hei rel i gi bi l i t yforas y l um
r el i ef. I tnece s s ar i l yfol l ow s t hatt heydi d notes t abl i s h t hei rent i t l ementt o w i t hhol di ng of
re m o v a l. G u o v . A sh c ro ft , 3 8 6 F .3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). S im ilarly , the re c o rd w ill
n o t su p p o rt a f

in d in g o f a lik e lih o o d th a t p e tit io n e rs w o u ld b e to rtu re d if re tu rn e d to I ndones i a. T he pet i t i on forr evi ew w i l l be deni ed.