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 10-9-2009 

# T jhie 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 . 06-2554

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . 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 a nd 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 l l a nova 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 a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" T jhie v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 491. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/4911 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. 06- 2554

___________ F E R R Y S U S A N T O T J H I E ; S H I N T A A . L I E M, 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 ( A gencyN os . A 96 265 970 and A 96 265 971) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M iriam M ill s

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

O ct ober7, 2009 B efor e: FU E N T E S, W E I S and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

O pi ni on fi l ed: O ct ober9, 2009

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

Fer r yT j hi e and hi s w i fe, Shi nt a Li em, pet i t i on forr evi ew of an or derof the B o ard o f Im m igrati o n A p p ea ls ( “B IA ”) a d o p ti n g an d af firm ing the Im m igrati o n Ju d g e’sT he part i es r efe rt o Shi nt a as Shi nt a “Li m . ” A s r ecogni zed byt he G overnm ent , t he 1 a d m in is tr a tiv e re c o rd re f le c ts th a t h e r l a s t n a m e is “ L ie m .” A .R . a t 2 5 1 .

2 ( “I J ”) deci s i on deny i ng t hei rappl i cat i ons forr el i ef f r om r emoval . W e w i l l denyt he p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T j hi e and Li em ar e nat i ves and ci t i zens of I ndones i a. T j hi e ca m e t o t he 1 U nit ed S t at es i n M arch 19 98 as a vi si t or, and L i em cam e here i n Janu ary19 99 as a vi s i t or . I n 2003, t he I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce i s s ued a not i ce t o appea r char gi ng t hatT

j hi e and Li em ar e s ubj ectt o r emoval forr emai ni ng her e l ongert han perm i t t ed. T hr ough couns el , T j hi e and Li em conceded thei rr emovabi l i t y . T heyappl i ed 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 ” ). T jhie an d L iem w ith d rew their req u ests fo r asy lum b ec au se th eir ap p li ca ti o n s w ere unt i m el yfi l ed.

A tt hei rhear i ng befor e the I J , T j hi e and Li em re l i ed on thei rw r i t t en a f f id a v its f o r th e f a c ts s u p p o rtin g th e ir c laim s f o r re lief. T

jh ie, w h o is C h in e se , sta ted in hi s aff i davi tt hati n 1997 he w as bapt i zed a nd beca m e a Chri s t i an. T j hi e had a pr i nt i ng b u sin e ss w h e re h e a n d L iem w o rk e d . T jh ie s tate d th a t at f

irst h e h a d a g o o d re latio n sh ip w ith h is e m p lo y e e s , a n d th a t th e e m p lo y e e s h a d n o p ro b le m w ith th e irC h ri s tia n re lig io n . H ow ever , w hen r i ot s and chur ch bombi ngs beca m e more pr eval ent , t he empl oy ees change d. T he empl oy ees br oke the machi nery , m ade ba d pr oduct s , and t eas ed Li em on acc ountof herchur ch ac t i vi t i es . T hei rr el at i ons hi p w i t h t hei rempl oy ees w or s ened, and3

T j hi e dec i ded t o l ayt hem off. T he empl oy ees as ked fora l ar ge s um of m oneyas s epar at i on payand thr eat ened t o bur n dow n t he bus i nes s . T j hi e and the empl oy ees ul t i m at el yagr eed upon a n amount of s epar at i on pay . T j hi e s t at ed thataft ert he empl oy ees lef t, th e ystill trie d to d e stro yth e b u sin e ss . In 1 9 9 8 , T jh ie’ s f rie n d in v ited h im to tra v e l to t he U nit ed S t at es w i t h h i m . T j hie s t at ed thathe w anted t o tour and to see i f t here w as a c h a n c e f o r b u sin e ss h e re . T

jh ie f e e ls s a f e h e re a n d d o e s n o t w a n t to re tu rn to In d o n e sia b ase d u p o n h is pa st ex p erien ce . H e stated that h e c an g o to ch u rch h ere w ith o u t fea r.

L i em, w ho al s o i s C hi nes e, s t at ed i n heraff i davi tt hati n 1989 s he bega n at t endi ng t he C hr i s t i an chur ch. She w as bapt i zed i n 1993 and w as an ac t i ve chur ch m ember . Peopl e i n hernei ghbor hood and atw or k began t o har as s her . She s t at ed thatt he bus i nes s al s o s uffe r ed and ul t i m at el ycl os ed i n D ece m ber1998. I n J anuary1999, L i em came her e t o at t end a c hur ch s emi nari n C al i forni a. She t hen w entt o Phi l adel phi a t o s ee T jh ie . L ie m d o e s n o t w a n t to re tu rn to In d o n e s ia d u e to th e o n g o in g re lig io u s c o n f lic t. S h e f e a rs h e r l if

e w o u ld b e in d a n g e r a s a p ra c tic in g C h ri s tia n . T j hi e al s o t es t i fi ed att he hea r i ng t hathe fe ar ed thathi s l i fe w as t hr eat ened i n I ndones i a. L i em t es t i fi ed thats he w as t r aumat i zed byt he pas t , t hats he fe ar ed her bel ongi ngs w oul d be des t r oy ed aga i n, and thats he w oul d be fol l ow ed and r i di cul ed w hen s he w entt o chur ch. L i em al s o s t at ed on cr os s - exami nat i on t hat , aft erT j hi e l eftI ndones i a, s he w as ki cked tw i ce w hi l e r i di ng herm ot or cy cl e t o chur ch.4 In d en y ing w ith h o lding o f re m o v al an d reli ef u n d er the C A T , the IJ c o n c lu d e d th a t T

jh ie a n d L iem d id n o t m e e t th e ir b u rd e n o f p ro o f to sh o w th a t th e yw o u ld m o re lik e lyth a n n o t b e h a rm e d if th e yre tu rn e d to In d o n e sia . T h e IJ b e liev e d th a t T jh ie and Li em suffe r ed ec onom i c pr obl ems w hen theyl os tt hei rempl oy ees and had t o run t hei rcompany , and thatt hes e eve nt s l ed t o T j hi e’ s t r i p t o the U ni t ed St at es . T he I J not ed t hatT j hi e ca m e her e fora bus i nes s oppor tuni t y , and thathi s w i fe c ame her e on chur chre late d b u sin e ss . T h e IJ a lso n o ted th a t th e yw a ited m o re th a n f o u r y e a rs to f

ile th e ir as y l um appl i cat i ons . T he I J s t at ed thatt he countryr eport s r efl ectt hati nt er - ethni c and in te rr e lig io u s re la tio n s in v o lv in g C h ri s tia n s a n d C h in e s e in In d o n e s ia h a v e im p ro v e d . T he I J r ecogni zed thatC hi nes e i ndi vi dual s m aybe s ubj ectt o di s cr i m i nat i on, buts t at ed t hat di scr i m i nati on i s i nsuff i ci ent for w i t hh oldi ng of rem ov al or C A T rel i ef. T he IJ al so n o ted th at th ere w as n o ev iden ce that the g o v ern m en t had ev er h arm ed them , w o u ld m o re l i k e l yt h a n n o th a r m th e m, o rwo u l d a c ti n c o n c e r twi t h o t h e r s t o h a r m th e m.

T he B I A adopt ed and a ffi r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on, not i ng t hatT j hi e and Li em w er e i nvol ved i n an empl oym entdi s put e overpayw i t h for m erempl oy ees t hatw as unr el at ed t o t hei rr el i gi on orethni ci t y , and thatt he thr eat s T j hi e and Li em re cei ved fr om t hei rfor m erempl oy ees di d notamount t o per s ecut i on. T hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew fol l ow ed.

T o the e x tent the B IA ad o p ted th e d ec isi o n o f th e IJ, w e re v iew the IJ’s deci s i on. Z hang v. G onzal es , 405 F. 3d 150, 155 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . W e r evi ew t he fi ndi ngs of fa ctr el at ed t o Pet i t i oner s ’ w i t hhol di ng forr emoval and C A T cl ai m s undert heT o be gr ant ed w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , an al i en musts how t hati ti s m or e l i kel yt han 2 n o t th a t h is lif

e o r f re e d o m w o u ld b e th re a ten e d in th e c o u n tryo f re m o v a l b e c a u se o f

h is ra c e , re lig io n , n a tio n a lity, 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 . See Zubeda v. A s hcr oft , 333 F. 3d 463, 469- 70 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . T o be gr ant ed r el i ef unde r t he C A T , an al i en musts how t hati ti s m or e l i kel yt han nott hathe ors he w oul d be t or tur ed i f r emoved. I d. at471. 5 s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s ta n d a rd . T a rr a w a lly v . A s h c ro f t, 3 3 8 F .3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). U nd er this st and ard, w e w i l l no tdis turb t hese 

### fi ndi ngs i f the y ar e s upport e d by reaso n ab le, sub stantial, an dp ro b ativ e ev id en ce o nth e reco rdco n sid eredas a w h o le. Id . Wem ust uph old the find ings of fact un le ss the e vidence not on ly supp orts a c on tr ar

y co n clu sio n , b ut co m

p els it. Ab d ille v . A sh cro f t, 2 4 2 F .3 d4 7 7 , 4 8 3 -8 4 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 1 ). The r e i s s ubs t ant i a le vi de nc e s upport i ng the I J ’ s c onc lus i on that Tjhi e and Liem did n ot es ta

blis h that i t i s more l ikely than no t t

hat they willbe harm ed if re m ov ed to In d o n esia. T h e h arm

T j h ie an dL iem

exp erien cedto th eir b u sin ess inIn d o n esia d id 2 

### not c ons t i t ut e pa s t pe r s e c ut i on. Se e Fat i n v. I . N. S. , 12 F. 3d 1233, 1240 ( 3d Ci r . 1993) (n o tin g p ersecutio nin clu d es threats to lif e, co n f in em ent, to rture, an deco n o mic r e s tri c t i ons s o s e ve r e that the y c ons t i t ut e athr e at

t o l i fe or fr e e dom) . The r e i s a l s o no evidence s ho wing that

the I nd on es ian g ov er

nm ent e ver harmed Tj hie or Lie m or was unwill ing to p rote ct

them . As noted by

the I J, with the e xcepti onof continued v iole nce i n c e rt a i n ar e a s , the c ountry r e port s i n the r e c or d r e fl e c t a dvanc e s i n i nt e rr e l i gi ous to leran ce inIn d o n esia. T h e co untry rep o rts d o n o t ref

lect p ersecutio no f

C h in ese individu al s. Tj hie andLiem have no t i dentifie d any

evidence com

pell ing con tr ar

yW e not e thatPet i t i oner s ’ br i ef mi s s t at es t he r ecor d, r efe r r i ng t o event s t hatnei t her 3 T j hi e orL i em st at ed occ ur r ed i n t hei raff i davi t s . See Pet ’ r s ’ B r . at8, 13. 

### co n clu sio n s. 3 A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .