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 3-26-2008 

# S uh arya di 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 . 06-4254

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 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 " S uh arya d i v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1385. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1385H onor abl e J os eph E. I r enas , Seni orU ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctJ udge forthe D i s t r i ctof * N ew J er s ey , 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 N o. 06- 4254 G A T O T S U H A R Y A D I, 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 P e tit io n f

o r R e v iew o f

th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A Fi l e N o. A 96- 203- 474) Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February25 , 2008 B e f o re : M c K E E , A M B R O , C i r cui tJudges , and 

### I RENAS , Se ni or Di s tri c t J udge . * 

### ( Fi l e d: Mar c h 26, 2008) OP INI ONPet i t i onerdecl i ned t o des i gnat e a c ount r yof r emoval atthe mast ercal endarhear i ng. 1 2 

### IREN A S , Se ni or

Uni te d StatesDi

s tri c t J udge . Pe t i t i one r , Gat ot

Suharya di , s e e ks r e vi e w of the de c i s i on of the Boar d of Im migrati onAp peal s ( “BIA”) affirming the Im migrati onJudg e’ s ( “I J” ) dec is ion that Pe t i t i one r wa s i ne l i gibl e for

a s ylum , wi thhol di ng of r e m ova l , and r e l i e f unde r the Conve nt i on Aga i ns t

Tort ur e ( “ CAT” ) . For

the fol l owi ng r e a s ons , the Pe t i t i on wi l lbe de ni e d.

I. Pet i t i oner , a thi r t y - s even y earol d m al e, i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of I ndones i a. O n J anuary31, 2000, Pet i t i onerw as admi t t ed t o t he U ni t ed St at es on a B - 2 vi s i t orvi s a, w hi ch perm i t t ed hi m t o s t ayi n t he countr yforno m or e than s i x m ont hs . W i t hout obt ai ni ng addi t i onal author i zat i on fr om the U ni t ed St at es governm ent , Pet i t i oner r emai ned i n t he U ni t ed St at es bey ond J ul y30, 2000. O n A pr i l 16, 2003, the D epart m ent o f H o m elan d S ec u ri tyissue d a N o ti ce to A p p ea r, ch arg ing h im w ith rem o v ab il ityu n d er 8 U . S. C . § 1227( a) ( 1) ( B ) . A tt he mast ercal endarhear i ng on O ct ober22, 2003, Pet i t i oner admi t t ed the fa ctual al l egat i ons i n t he N ot i ce t o A ppear , thus conce di ng he w as r e mov a b l e , a n d r e q u e s t e d a s y l u m, wi t h h o l d i n g o f r e mov a l , a n d r e l i e f

u n d e rth e CA T. 1 A ta s ubs equentm er i t s hear i ng on t hes e cl ai m s , Pet i t i onert es t i fi ed thathe w as ori ginal l yfrom K edir i , a sm al l vil l age in I nd on esi a. P et i t i on er w as born an d rai sed as aPet i t i onerm ethi s w i fe i n 1986. 2 3 M usl i m , and l at er conv ert ed to C hri st i anityi n 1 99 0, i n o rdert o m arryhis w i fe, a C hinese C h r i s t i a n . P e t i t i o n e r ’ s w i f e i s o r i g i n a l l y f

r o m J a k a r t a , a n d a f

t e ra t t e n d i n g u n i v e r s i t y, 2 Pet i t i onerl i ved “s om et i m es i n K edi r i , s om et i m es i n J akart a. ” A ft erhe mar r i ed hi s w i fe in 1 9 9 9 , P e tit io n e r a n d h is w if e liv e d p rim a rilyin Ja k a rta , w h e re h is w if e ’s f a m ilystill r e s i d e s . P e t i t i o n e ro n l ya t t e n d e d c h u r c h i n J a k a r t a a n d d i d n o ta t t e n d c h u r c h i n h i s h o me v illa g e o f

K e d ir i. Pet i t i onert es t i fi ed thathe i ni t i al l ycame t o t he U ni t ed St at es beca us e of t ens i ons betw een M us l i m s and C hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a. I n addi t i on t o t he over al l r el i gi ous ten sio n s in In d o n e sia , P e tit io n e r’s f a m ilyd id n o t ap p ro v e o f h is c o n v e rsio n a n d u lti m a tely e v ic te d h im (p re s u m a b ly f ro m liv in g w ith th e m ) b e c a u s e h e m a rr ie d a C h ri s tia n . P e tit io n e r te stif

ied th a t h e a lso w a n ted to c o m e to th e U n ited S tate s b e c a u se m a n yo f h is w i fe’ s fr i ends w er e l i vi ng peac eful l yher e. W hen as ked w hatw as t he “w or s tthi ng thathappene d i n I ndones i a, ” Pet i t i oner t es t i fi ed thathe and hi s w i fe w er e the t ar getof vi ol ence i n 1998. Pet i t i onerand hi s w i fe ( hi s t hen gi r l fr i end) w er e on a mot or cy cl e dr i vi ng thr ough t he mar ketw hen they appr oache d a gr oup of i ndi vi dual s fi ni s hi ng thei rFr i daypr ay er s . A m emberof thi s gr oup to ld P e titio n e r t o p u ll o v e r; P e titio n e r p u lle d o v e r, b u t d id n o t f u lly sto p th e m o to rc y c le . A g rou p m em b er the n h itP eti ti o n er, w h o fe ll to the g rou n d fro m the b ike, an d the e n ti re g ro u p th e n p ro c e e d e d to b e a t P e tit io n e r f o r a p p ro x im a telyf

iv e m in u tes . T h e a ttac k e rs d id4

notr ob Pet i t i oner , butPet i t i oners us t ai ned brui s es fr om the i nci dent . Pet i t i oner ’ s w i fe re m a in e d u n h a rm e d . P eti ti o n er testi fied that h e d o es n o t w an t t o return to In d o n esia b ec au se h e f ea rs th a t h e w ill n o t b e a b le to liv e p e a c e a b lyb e c a u se o f h is c o n v e rsio n to C h ristia n ity . W ith t he exc ept i on of the mot or cy cl e i nci dentand hi s fami l y ’ s di s appr oval of hi s conver s i on and mar r i age, Pet i t i onerdi d nott es t i fyas t o anyot hers peci fi c phy s i cal at t acks or i nci dent s of adve r s e tr eatm ent . Pet i t i onerbel i eves that , i f theyr eturn t o I ndones i a, he and hi s w i fe w oul d be s afe rl i vi ng i n J akart a, as the peopl e ther e ar e more t ol er antand a c c e p tin g th a n in K e d iri. P e tit io n e r te stif ied th a t h is a p p lica tio n f o r a sy lu m w a s u n tim e ly becau se he did no tkn ow w hat as y l um w as w hen he fir starr i ved i n the U nit ed S t at es. T h e IJ issue d an o ral de cisi o n an d o rde r on A u g u st 29 , 2 0 0 5 , d en y ing P eti ti o n er’s r eques tforas y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde rthe C A T , and or der i ng Pet i t i oner ’ s r emoval t o I ndones i a. T he B I A adopt ed and a ffi r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on on A ugus t31, 2006. T hi s Pet i t i on forR evi ew fol l ow ed.

II. T hi s C our thas j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the B I A ’ s fi nal r emoval or derpur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) . T he B I A ’ s one par agr aph opi ni on aff i r m s and adopt s the I J ’ s or al deci s i on. T her efor e, w e r evi ew t he B I A ’ s opi ni on, and al s o t he I J ’ s deci s i on t o t he ext ent5

it w a s re lie d u p o n b yth e B IA . See Vociv. G onz al es , 409 F. 3d 607, 612 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( c i t i n g s e v e r a l c a s e s d e mo n s t r a t i n g th i s Co u rt ’ s r e c o g n i t i o n th a t“ i n s o me i n s t a n c e s , we re v ie w b o th th e d e c is io n s o f th e IJ a n d th e B IA ” ). 

### Fact ual det er minations about pas t per se cuti onor fear of fu turepers ec ution, as w ell as cred ib ility

d etermin atio n s, are rev iew edun d er th e sub stantial ev id en ce stan d ard . Ch en v. Go nzales , 434 F. 3d 212, 216 ( 3d Ci r . 2005) . Thus , fa c t ua lfi ndi ngs m

us t be uphe l d “ ‘ unl e s s any

r e a s onabl e a djudi c at or

woul d be c om

pe l l e d t o c onc lude t o the contrary .’ ” Id. (qu o tin g 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )(4 )(B )). D enial s of C A T rel i ef are al so s u b je c t to s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e re v ie w . Zu b e da v . A sh c ro ft , 3 3 3 F . 3 d 4 6 3 , 4 7 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ).

III . W e not e att he ons ett hatourr evi ew i s l i m i t ed t o Pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m s for w i t hhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef unde rC A T . A s t o Pet i t i oner ’ s r eques tforas y l um , t he B I A det erm i ned thatPet i t i onerdi d notfi l e hi s as y l um appl i cat i on w i t hi n the one- y ear l i m i t at i ons per i od s etfor t h i n 8 U . S. C . § 1158 ( a) ( 2) ( B ) and thatPet i t i onerdi d not es t abl i s h change d ci r cumst ance s t hatm at er i al l yaff ect ed hi s as y l um appl i cat i on or ex tr ao rdin arycircu m stan ce s related to the fa il u re to m ee t th e f il ing d ea d li n e. W e a re th e re f o re w ith o u t ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w P e titio n e r’ s re q u e s t f o r a s y lu m . See 8 U .S .C . § 1158 ( a) ( 2) ( D ) ( “[n] o cour ts hal l have the j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew anydet erm i nat i on of thePet i t i onerhas notm ade a nyar gum ent s r egar di ng cons t i tut i onal ques t i ons ori s s ues of 3 la w th a t c o u ld p e rm it u s to re ta in ju ri s d ic tio n o n th e a s y lu m c la im . See Sukw anputr a v. G onz al es , 4 3 4 F .3 d 6 2 7 , 6 3 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (“ [ D ]e sp ite th e c h a n g e s o f th e R E A L ID A c t, 8 U. S . C. § 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 3 ) c o n t i n u e s t o d i v e s tth e c o u r to f a p p e a l s o f

j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w a deci s i on r egar di ng w hetheran al i en es t abl i s hed cha nged orextr aor di naryci r cumst ance s that w o u ld ex cu se h is un ti m elyfil ing . ”). 6 A t t or neyG ener al ” r egar di ng t he t i m el i nes s of an a s y l um appl i cat i on orthe exi s t ence of c h a n g e d c irc u m sta n c e s); T a rr a w a lly v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 3 8 F . 3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). 3

A. W i t hhol di ng of r emoval i s avai l abl e under8 U . S. C . § 1231( b) ( 3) ( A ) “i f the A t t or neyG ener al deci des t hatt he al i en’ s l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened i n t hat countr ybeca us e of the al i en’ s r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al g ro u p , o r p o lit ica l o p in io n .” A f in d in g o f p a st p e rse c u tio n g iv e s ris e to a re b u ttab le pr es um pt i on t hatt he “a ppl i cant ’ s l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened i n t he futur e i n t he c o u n tryo f

re m o v a l o n th e b a sis o f th e o rig in a l cla im .” 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 6 (b )(1 )(I); s ee al s o Jar bough v. A t t or ney G ener al , 483 F. 3d 184, 190 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . I n t he al t ernat i ve, “[i ]f the ap pli cant’ s fear of futur e t hreatt o li fe or freedom i s unrel at ed to the p ast per s ecut i on, t he appl i cantbear s t he bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan not that h e o r she w o u ld su ff er su ch h arm . ” 8 C . F . R § 2 0 8 . 1 6 (b)(1 )(i ii ). W hi l e the I J found the t es t i m onyof Pet i t i onert o be cr edi bl e, the I J hel d t hatthe act i ons t aken a gai ns tPet i t i oneri ndi vi dual l yorcumul at i vel yw er e nots uffi ci entt o t r i ggerT h e IJ a lso q u e stio n e d w h e th e r th e m a rk e t in c id e n t w a s e v e n m o tiv a ted b ye th n ic 4 h o s tilit ie s . 7 a f in d in g o f p a st p e rse c u tio n . “P e rse c u tio n ” is “ ‘e x tre m e c o n d u c t’” su c h a s “ ‘th re a ts to l i fe, confi nement , t or tur e, and ec onom i c r es t r i ct i ons s o s ever e thattheycons t i tut e a thr eat t o l i fe orfr eedom. ’ ” L ie v . A sh c ro ft, 396 F. 3d 530, 534, 536 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng Fa t i n v . I NS , 1 2 F .3 d 1 2 3 3 , 1 2 4 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 3 )). P e tit io n e r a rg u e s th a t th e in c id e n t in t he mar ketpr ovi des evi dence of pas tper s ecut i on. W hi l e w e r ecogni ze thatthe mar ket a ttac k w a s h a rm f

u l to P e tit io n e r, w e d o n o t b e liev e th a t th is s in g le in c id e n t is su f f icie n tly s ever e t o gi ve r i s e t o a fi ndi ng of pas tper s ecut i on. See L ie , 396 F. 3d at536 ( hol di ng 4 t hat , i n t he cont extof an a s y l um pet i t i on m ade byC hi nes e C hr i s t i ans fr om I ndones i a, “tw o i s ol at ed cr i m i nal act s , perpetr at ed byunknow n as s ai l ant s , w hi ch r es ul t ed onl yi n the t heftof s om e per s onal pr opert yand a mi nori nj ury , i s nots uffi ci ent l ys ever e t o be c o n sid e re d p e rse c u tio n ” ). F u rth e r, w e d o n o t b e liev e th e c o n d u c t b yP e tit io n e r’s f a m ily fal l s w i t hi n t he def

i ni t i on of per s ecut i on, as thei ract i ons di d notthr eat en Pet i t i oner ’ s l i fe o rf r e e d o m. B e c a u se P e tit io n e r h a s f a iled to e sta b lish p a st p e rse c u tio n , h e m u st s h o w th a t itis m or e l i kel yt han nott hathe w oul d be s ubj ectt o futur e per s ecut i on i n or dert o qual i fyfor w ith h o ld in g . See Toure v. A t t or ney G ener al , 443 F. 3d 310, 317 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng IN S v . S tev ic , 4 6 7 U .S . 4 0 7 , 4 2 4 (1 9 8 4 )). A s s e t f o rth in th e 2 0 0 2 -2 0 0 4 C o u n tryR e p o rts publ i s hed byt he D epart m entof St at e forI ndones i a ( “C ount r yR epor t s ”) , Pet i t i onerPet i t i onerdes i gnat ed r ace , r el i gi on, and mem ber s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup as 5 th e b a se s f

o r re lief in h is a sy lu m a p p lica tio n . T h e IJ n o ted th a t th e ra c e b a sis p re su m a b ly d e riv e d f ro m h is w if

e , b u t th a t itw a s u n c lea r a s to w h yP e tit io n e r m a rk e d m e m b e rsh ip in a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, hypot hes i zi ng i tw as bas ed i n Pet i t i oner ’ s m ember s hi p i n an i nt er fai t h m arr i age. T he I J r ecogni zed thatt he C our ti n Li e di d nothave the oppor tuni t yt o r evi ew the 6 2 0 0 4 C o u n tryR ep o rto n Ind o n esia, bu t no ted th at th ere w as n o thing in the u p d ated rep o rt to su g g e st th a t th e T h ird C irc u it w o u ld tak e a d if f e re n t p o sitio n . T h e IJ’ s a n a ly sis in th is cas e contr as t s w i t h t he Su kw an pu tra IJ, w h o d id n o t “sp ec ifi ca ll yad d ress[ ] w h ethe r a p a tte rn o r p ra c tic e o f

p e rs e c u tio n e x is te d in In d o n e s ia .” 4 3 4 F .3 d a t 6 3 7 . 8 r efe r ence s a hi s t or yof r aci al and r el i gi ous t ens i ons as evi dence of the l i kel i hood t hat P e tit io n e r w ill b e su b

jec t to f u tu re p e rse c u tio n d u e to h is ra c e , relig io n o r m e m b e rsh ip in a part i cul ars oci al gr oup. T hi s C i r cui thas pr evi ous l yhel d t hatther e i s not“a pa t t ern or 5 pr act i ce of

per s ecut i on of C hi nes e C hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a, ” part i cul ar l yas the vi ol ence t ow ar d C hi nes e “s eems t o have be en pr i m ar i l yw r oughtbyfel l ow ci t i zens and notthe r es ul tof governm ent al act i on oracqui es cenc e. ” L ie , 3 9 6 F .3 d a t 5 3 7 . B a se d o n h is r evi ew of the more r ece ntC ount r yR epor t s and the Thi r d C i r cui t ’ s pr i orpos i t i on r e g a r d i n g p e r s e c u t i o n o f Ch i n e s e Ch r i s t i a n s f

r o m L ie , the I J found thatther e w as no ev iden ce that P eti ti o n er w o u ld b e sin g led o u t fo r pe rsec u ti o n in the fu ture. F u rth er, 6 Pet i t i oner ’ s ow n t es t i m onyi ndi cat ed thathe w oul d be more comfort abl e and s afe rl i vi ng in Ja k a rta , as h e b e liev e s th e p e o p le th e re a re m o re to ler a n t an d a c c e p tin g o f in ter f a ith m arr i ages . A s s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the I J ’ s hol di ng thatPet i t i onerw oul d notbe s ubj ectt o per s ecut i on i f he r etur ned t o I ndones i a, Pet i t i oneri s notel i gi bl e for w i t hhol di ng of deport at i on.9 B. A r t i cl e 3 of the C A T , t o w hi ch the U ni t ed St at es beca m e a s i gnat oryi n 1999, s t at es th a t “[ n ]o S tate P a rtysh a ll ex p e l, retu rn (‘re f o u ler ’) o r e x tra d ite a p e rso n to a n o th e r S tate w her e ther e ar e s ubs t ant i al gr ounds forbel i evi ng thathe w oul d be i n dangerof bei ng su b jected to torture.” A p eti ti o n er m u st pro v e tha t “i t i s m o re li k elythan n o t th at [h e o r] s he w i l l be t or tur ed byt he governm entorw i t h i t s acqui es cenc e upon r emoval t o a par t i cul arcountr y . ” 

### Ch en , 434 F. 3d at 216 ; s ee al

s o 8 C . F. R . § 208. 16 ( c) ( 2) . T he al i en h a s th e b u rd e n o f

s u p p o rt in g h is c la im th ro u g h c re d ib le te s tim o n y . G hebr ehi w otv. A t t or ney G ener al , 4 6 7 F . 3 d 3 4 4 , 3 5 2 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) . To r tu r e i s d e f i n e d a s “ ‘ a n e x t r e me form of cruel and i nhum an tr eatm ent , ’ butnot‘ l es s erform s of cruel , i nhum an or d eg rad ing tr ea tm en t. ’” C hen , 4 3 4 F .3 d a t 2 1 6 (c itin g 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 8 (c )( 3 )( i) ). T he I J found nothi ng i n t he r ecor d t o s uppor tPet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m thathe w oul d be s u b je c t to to rt u re b yth e In d o n e s ia n g o v e rn m e n t o r i ts a g e n ts if h e re tu rn e d to In d o n e s ia . F u rth er, as P eti ti o n er h as f ail ed to p rese n t evid en ce that h e w o u ld b e su b ject t o fu ture p e rse c u tio n , m u c h les s to rtu re , w e re h e to re tu rn to In d o n e sia , su b sta n tial e v id e n c e e x ists to s u p p o rt th e IJ ’s d e c is io n th a t P e titio n e r i s in e lig ib le f o r r e lie f u n d e r t h e C A T . I V. A ccor di ngl y , t he Pet i t i on forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval and pr ot ect i on undertheC A T w i l l be deni ed.