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 5-12-2008 

# Lim ant 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 . 06-4255

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 " L im ant o v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1242. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1242NOT 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- 4255

____________ T OE NDOR O P RA S E T YO L I M ANT O,

P eti ti o n er,

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES,

R e sp o n d e n t.

____________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew fr om an O rd e r o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B oar d N o. A 79- 734- 293) 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 t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay6, 2008 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , B A R R Y a n d H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudges . ( Fi l ed: M ay12, 2008 )

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________2

H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge . T oendor o Pr as ety o L i m ant o pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (B IA ) f in d in g h im in e lig ib le f

o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. W e w ill denythe pet i t i on. I. L i ma n t o i s a 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 a n d a n e th n i c Ch i n e s e Ch r i s t i a n . He a rriv e d in th e U n ited S tate s a s a n o n -im m ig ra n t v isito r o n Ju ly8 , 1 9 9 9 a n d o v e rsta y e d h is v isa . A t a h e a rin g o n M a y2 9 , 2 0 0 3 , L im a n to c o n c e d e d th a t h e w a s s u b jec t to re m o v a l. O n J ul y3, 2003, L i m ant o fi l ed appl i cat i ons foras y l um and w i thhol di ng of r emoval . I m m i gr at i on J udge ( I J ) M i r i am K . M i l l s deni ed Li m ant o’ s as y l um appl i cat i on a s tim e -b a rr e d a n d d e n ie d h is a p p lic a tio n f o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l o n th e m e ri ts . L im an to ap p ea led o n lythe IJ’s d en ial o f w ith h o lding o f re m o v al t o the B IA . T h e B IA a d o p t e d a n d a f

f i r me d th e I J ’ s d e c i s i o n , a n d L i ma n t o f i l e d a t i me l yp e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. II. L im a n to c laim s th a t h e su f f e re d p a st p e rse c u tio n in In d o n e sia o n a c c o u n t o f h is C h ines e e thn ici tyan d C h ri sti an fa ith an d that h e f ac es a clea r pro b ab il ityo f f u ture p e rse c u tio n if

h e is f o rc e d to re tu rn . A t an e v id e n tiary he a rin g b e f o re th e IJ, L im a n to d e sc rib e d a se rie s o f

e v e n ts in su p p o rt o f

h is c laim o f

p a st p e rse c u tio n in In d o n e sia . F irst, h e te s tif ie d th a t o n M a y1 3 , 1 9 9 8 , h is n e ig h b o r’ s h o u s e w a s b u rn e d d o w n d u ri n g a ri o t. N e x t, he tes tifie d th a t o n Ju n e 1 3 , 1 9 9 8 , a g ro u p o f M u slim y o u th s s to le a n d se t f ire to h is3

m ot or cy cl e. Fi nal l y , he t es t i fi ed thatw hi l e att endi ng chur ch, he and hi s fel l ow par i s hi oner s w er e aboutt o be att acke d bya gr oup of M us l i m s w hen pol i ce r es ponded t o a cal l fr om chur ch s ecur i tyand thw art ed the att ack. W ith re g a rd to h is c laim o f a c lea r p ro b a b ili tyo f

f u tu re p e rse c u tio n , L im a n to t est i fi ed that , w hil e t he si tuati on i n Indo nesi a i s i m proving, he st i l l fears r eturni ng becau se o f th e M u slim p o p u latio n ’s h a tre d o f C h in e se C h ristia n s. L im a n to a lso in d ica ted th a t h is e n tire f a m ilyh a s re m a in e d b e h in d in In d o n e sia a n d , alth o u g h h is w if e “ f e e ls a f ra id ,” is “al w ay s m ovi ng ar ound, ” and i s afr ai d t o att end chur ch, hi s fami l yhas notbeen ha r m ed dur i ng hi s abs ence . III . W h e re , as h e re , the B IA a d o p ts th e IJ’ s f in d in g s a n d a lso d isc u ss e s s p e c if ic p a rts o f th e IJ ’s d e c is io n , w e re v ie w b o th d e c is io n s . X ie v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 5 9 F . 3 d 2 3 9 , 2 4 2 (3d C ir . 2004) . W e r evi ew the I J ’ s fac tual det erm i nat i ons underthe s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d, u n d e r w h ich th e ym u st b e u p h e ld u n les s th e re c o rd e v id e n c e w o u ld c o m p e l a r e a so n a b le f a c tf in d e r t o c o n c lu d e to th e c o n tr a ry. A b du lra h m a n v . A sh c ro ft , 330 F. 3d 587, 597 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). I V. T o qual i fyforw i thhol di ng of r emoval , an al i en musts how a cl earpr obabi l i tyt hat hi s l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened on a ccountof one of the s t atut or i l y - pr ot ect ed groun ds. 8 U . S . C . § 1 23 1(a) (3) (A ); 8 C . F . R . § 1 20 8. 16 (b) . If the ali en d em on strat es past4

per s ecut i on on acc ountof one of the pr ot ect ed gr ounds , he i s ent i t l ed t o a pr es um pt i on th a t h is lif

e o r f re e d o m w o u ld b e th re a te n e d u p o n h is re tu rn . 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 6 (b )( 1 )( i) . A l t ernat i vel y , i f the al i en ca nnotes t abl i s h pas tper s ecut i on, he mayqual i fyforr el i ef by s h o wi n g th a ti ti s mo r e l i k e l yth a n n o tth a th e wo u l d b e p e r s e c u t e d i f r e tu rn e d . 8 C. F . R. § 1 2 0 8 . 1 6 (b)(2 ). T hough t he I N A does notdefi ne per s ecut i on, thi s C our tr ecogni zed i tas an “extr eme conceptthatdoes noti ncl ude eve rys or tof tr eatm entours oci etyr egar ds as offe ns i ve. ” Fa t i n v . I

NS , 12 F. 3d 1233, 1243 ( 3d C i r . 1993) . I n Fa tin , w e des cr i bed p erse cu ti o n as “ threa ts t o li fe , co n fin em en t, tortu re, an d ec o n o m ic restr ict ion s so sev ere thattheycons t i tut e a thr eatt o l i fe orfr eedom. ” Id . at1240. A l though the thw art ed ch u rch att ac k an d the d estruc ti o n o f L im an to’s m o torcy cle a n d a n eigh b o r’s ho m e a re u n d o u b ted lytro u b lin g , the yn e v e rth e les s f a il t o m e e t th e strin g e n t sta n d a rd a rticu late d in Fa tin . A ccor di ngl y , w e hol d t hats ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the I J ’ s fac tual det erm i nat i on thatL i m ant o di d nots uffe rpas tper s ecut i on i n I ndones i a. L i m ant o has al s o fai l ed t o es t abl i s h thathe fa ces a cl earpr obabi l i tyof per s ecut i on if return ed to In d o n esia. In o rde r t o m ee t th e less stri n g en t “w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar” stan d ard thati s appl i cabl e t o as y l um cl ai m s , L i m ant o m us ts how ei therthathe fa ces an i ndi vi dual i zed r i s k of per s ecut i on i f r eturned orthatther e i s a “pa t t ern orpr act i ce” of p e rs e c u tio n o f

e th n ic C h in e s e C h ri s tia n s in In d o n e s ia . L ie v . A sh c ro ft , 396 F. 3d 530, 537 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . L i m ant o has pr es ent ed no evi dence t o s how thathe w oul d be s i ngl ed outA s the I J not ed, the 2004 countrycondi t i on r eport s s ubm i t t ed byL i m ant o s how 1 thatcondi t i ons forC hi nes e C hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a have actual l yi m pr oved s i nce the 1999 r eport s deemed i ns uffi ci entt o demonstr at e a “ patt ern orpr act i ce” of per s ecut i on i n L ie . 5 forper s ecut i on upon hi s r eturn. Fur therm or e, though the countrycondi t i on r eport s that L im a n to h a s s u b m itt e d in d ica te th a t so m e a n ti-C h in e se C h ristia n v io len c e p e rsis ts in I ndones i a, thi s neverthel es s does notr i s e t o the l evel of a “ patt ern orpr act i ce” of p e rs e c u tio n . S e e id . L i m ant o’ s cl ai m i s al s o underm i ned bythe cont i nued pr es ence of 1 h is f a m ily m e m b e rs in In d o n e s ia w ith o u t a p p a re n t h a rm . See i d. ( ci t i ng H akee m v. I

N S, 2 7 3 F . 3 d 8 1 2 , 8 1 6 (9th C ir . 2 0 0 1 )). T her efor e, beca us e Li m ant o has "f ai l [ed] t o es t abl i s h the w el l - founded f earof p e rse c u tio n re q u ire d f

o r a g ra n t o f

a sy lu m , h e . . . w ill , b yd e f in iti o n , h a v e f

a iled to est abli sh t he clearprobab i l i tyof p ers ecuti on requi red for w i thh oldi ng of d epo rt at i on . " Zu b e da v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 3 3 F . 3 d 4 6 3 , 4 6 9 -70 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , 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.