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 11-13-2008 

# As 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 . 07-4131

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 " As v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 237. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/237NOT 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. 07- 4131 ZUL KARNA I NI AS; AM ALI A ZULKARNAI NI ; DI ON FAUZAN; HOERRY

S AT RI O; HADY T HOYYI B; F I T HR A F AUZ ANA, 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 72- 372- 248, A 97- 188- 563, A 97- 188- 564, A 97- 188- 565, A 97- 188- 566, A 97- 188- 567 ) 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)

N ovember12, 2008 B efor e: B A R R Y , SM I T H and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: N ovember13, 2008)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Z ul kai r nai ni A s ( “pet i t i oner ”) and hi s w i fe a nd fourchi l dr en, nat i ves and ci t i zens of I ndones i a, pet i t i on forr evi ew of the B I A ’ s deci s i on deny i ng them w i thhol di ng ofU nderr egul at i ons es t abl i s hi ng the one- y earfi l i ng deadl i ne, any one s eeki ng as y l um 1 w ho had ent er ed the U . S. on orbefor e A pr i l 1, 1997, w as r equi r ed t o fi l e hi s orher a p p lic a tio n b yA p ri l 1 , 1 9 9 8 . S e e 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .4 (a )( 2 )( ii) . 2 r e mo v a l . 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. P e t i t i o n e re n t e r e d th e Un i t e d S t a t e s o n a n F - 1 s tu d e n tv i s a o n M a y1 4 , 1 9 9 4 . On O ct ober24, 1994, the governm entappr oved pet i t i oner ’ s appl i cat i on fora J - 1 vi s a, a v a ila b le to c e rt a in f

o re ig n s tu d e n ts , s c h o la rs , a n d re s e a rc h e rs . 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 1 5 )( J ). P e titio n e r’ s w if

e a n d c h ild re n w e re a d m itte d o n N o v e m b e r 3 0 , 1 9 9 4 , o n J -2 v is a s . Pet i t i onerfi l ed an a ffi r m at i ve appl i cat i on foras y l um on M ar ch 18, 2003. T he governm enti s s ued a N ot i ce t o A ppearon February5, 2004, char gi ng pet i t i oneras r emovabl e underI N A § 237( a) ( 1) ( C ) ( i ) , forover s t ay i ng hi s J - vi s a and c har gi ng p e tit io n e r’s f

a m ilya s re m o v a b le u n d e r IN A § 2 3 7 (a )(1 )(A ) f o r h a v in g b e e n in a d m iss ib le atthe t i m e of e ntr y . Pet i t i onerand hi s fami l ys oughtas y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval and pr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) bas ed on pet i t i oner ’ s 2003 as y l um appl i cat i on. T he I m m i gr at i on J udge det erm i ned thatpet i t i oner ’ s as y l um appl i cat i on w as t i m e- barr ed bec aus e he f ai l ed t o fi l e w i thi n one y earof A pr i l 1, 1998, 1 and he di d notqual i fyforan exc ept i on. T he I J al s o det erm i ned thatpet i t i onerhad not m ethi s bur den of pr oof forw i thhol di ng of r emoval orforC A T r el i ef. T he B I A deni ed p e t i t i o n e r s ’ a p p e a l , a n d p e t i t i o n e r s t i me l yf i l e d a p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. In th eir pe ti ti o n fo r rev iew , p eti ti o n er a n d h is fam il ych all en g e the B IA ’s det erm i nat i on thatpet i t i onerhad fa i l ed t o m eethi s bur den of pr oof on hi s cl ai m for3

w i thhol di ng of r emoval and r ai s e a numberof due pr oces s i s s ues . Pet i t i oneras s ert s t hat h e m a n a g e d th e In d o n e sia n g o v e rn m e n t’s f a m ilyp lan n in g p ro g ra m s u n d e r th e S u h a rto r egi m e, and that , w hi l e i n I ndones i a, he es pous ed moder at e M us l i m bel i efs thr ough the M D I, or C ou nsel of Isl am i c B el i efs. P et i t i on er as ser t s that he fears for hi s safetybecau se o f th e rise o f

e x tre m e M u slim ter ro rist o rg a n iza tio n s, a n d h is id e n titya s a m o d e ra te M u s l i m a n d f

o r m e rS u h a r t o o f

f i c i a l i n c h a r g e o f

f a m i l y p l a n n i n g p r o g r a m s . S p e c i f i c a l l y, pet i t i onernot es thatan or gani zat i on know n as J emaah I s l ami y ah has bom bed var i ous l ocat i ons i n an ef

for tt o t r ans form I ndones i a i nt o an I s l ami c theocr acy , and thati thas cl ai m ed r es pons i bi l i tyfordet onat i ng a bomb i n B al i i n 2002, w hi ch ki l l ed manypeopl e. W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r f in a l o rd e rs o f

re m o v a l. 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 1 ). “W here the B IA renders i t s ow n d eci si on and do es not m erel yado pt the o pini on of the IJ , w e r evi ew the B I A ’ s deci s i on, notthatof the I J . ” W ong v. A t t ’ yG en. , 539 F. 3d 225, 230 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . U nderthe s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d, w e w i l l defe r t o th e B I A ’ s f

a c tu a l f i n d i n g s u n l e s s th e e v i d e n c e c o m p e l s a c o n tr a ryc o n c l u s i o n . I d . We exer ci s e de novo r evi ew overcons t i tut i onal cl ai m s . 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) ; Y us upov v . A tt’ yG e n ., 5 1 8 F .3 d 1 8 5 , 1 9 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). Pet i t i oneras s ert s thatthe B I A err ed i n concl udi ng thathe w as notm or e l i kel yt han n o t to f a c e p e rse c u tio n b yM u slim e x tre m ists o n a c c o u n t o f h is id e n titya s a m o d e ra te M us l i m ex- offi ci al i n t he Suhart o r egi m e. Pet i t i oners ubm i t t ed evi dence of t ens i on b e twe e n M u s l i m e x tr e mi s t s a n d mo d e r a t e M u s l i ms i n I n d o n e s i a a n d a n u mb e ro f n e wsPet i t i oneral s o ci t es an art i cl e fr om N ew s w eek c om m ent i ng on the t ens i on betw een 2 M us l i m extr emi s t s and otherM us l i m s . ( Pet . B r . , 14. ) H ow ever , the art i cl e foc us es n a rro w lyo n th e A h m a d iyy a se c t o f Isla m . P e tit io n e r’s re lian c e o n th is a rticle to d e m o n s tr a te a la rg e -s c a le a s s a u lt b yM u s lim e x tr e m is ts o n a ll m o d e ra te s is m is p la c e d . (A . R . 1 0 2 8 -10 3 0 . ) Pet i t i onerr ai s ed thi s ar gum entbefor e the B I A , butthe B I A decl i ned t o addr es s the 3 ar gum entexpl i ci t l y . U nderthes e ci r cumst ance s , w e mayexami ne the I J ’ s opi ni on. See 4 art i cl es . Pet i t i oner ’ s expertt es t i fi ed thatpet i t i onerhad “s om e j us t i fi cat i on” forfea r i ng M us l i m extr emi s t s , noton t he bas i s of hi s m oder at e M us l i m bel i efs , buton the bas i s of hi s i nvol vementi n t he Suhart o r egi m e. ( A . R . 179. ) A ccor di ng t o the expe r tw i tnes s , t he Suhar t o r egi m e al i enat ed manym i l i t antI s l ami c gr oups byr es tr i ct i ng I s l ami c pol i t i cal p a rt ie s a n d p re v e n tin g th e im p le m e n ta tio n o f Is la m ic la w . (I d .) W e do no tbeli eve thatthis t est i m on y , or anyotheraspectof the recor d, com pels a c o n c l u s i o n th a tp e t i t i o n e rf a c e d a c l e a rp r o b a b i l i tyo f p e r s e c u t i o n . P e t i t i o n e rc i t e s n e ws art i cl es aboutr adi cal I s l ami c gr oups s eeki ng t o es t abl i s h I s l ami c l aw i n I ndones i a; h o w e v e r, th e a rticle s f

a il t o d e m o n stra te th a t th e se g ro u p s h a v e tar g e ted m o d e ra te M us l i m s orform erSuhar t o- r egi m e off i ci al s as oppos ed t o comm i t t i ng gener al i zed vi ol ence and cr eat i ng chaos . W e agr ee w i th the B I A thatpet i t i onerhas notdemonstr at ed 2 a c lear p rob ab il itythat h e w o u ld b e re co g n ized as a n ex -S u h arto o ff ici al so m an yy ea rs a f ter th e re g im e d iss o lv e d , n o r h a s h e d e m o n stra ted th a t th e h a rm h e w o u ld f a c e w o u ld cons t i tut e per s ecut i on. T her efor e, s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the B I A ’ s deci s i on. W e al s o do notbel i eve thatthe I J i m pr oper l ydeni ed pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m beca us e of gener al ci vi l s tr i fe i n I ndones i a. A l though pet i t i onercorr ect l yas s ert s thatper s ecut i on 3Jo se p h v . A tt’yG e n ., 4 2 1 F .3 d 2 2 4 , 2 2 6 n .4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (re f e rrin g to IJ’ s o p in io n to “ p ro v id e th e p ro p e r c o n te x t a n d b a c k g ro u n d ” f o r a n a lysis o f

th e B IA ’s ru lin g ). 5 m ayexi s teven i n t he cont extof gene r al i zed vi ol ence , w e al s o not e thatgener al i zed vi ol ence does notexcus e the pet i t i onerfr om demonstr at i ng a nexus betw een the per s ecut oryact s and a pr ot ect ed ca t egory . See V ent e v. G onzal es , 415 F. 3d 296, 301 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( as y l um cl ai m pos s i bl e ami ds tgener al s oci al unr es tw her e appl i canthad r ece i ved s peci fi c thr eat s fr om par ami l i t aryor gani zat i ons acc us i ng hi m of col l abor at i ng w i th guer i l l as ) . W hi l e pet i t i onercons trues the I J ’ s s t at ement s as evi dence of conf us i on a b o u t w h e th e r p e tit io n e r w a s re q u ire d to sh o w h e w a s “ sin g led o u t” b yM u slim extr emi s t s , i tappea r s thatthe I J w as pr i nci pal l yconce rned bypet i t i oner ’ s fai l ur e t o s how a n e x u s b e tw e e n th e B a li b o m b in g o f 2 0 0 2 a n d p e tit io n e r’s id e n titya s a m o d e ra te M u slim and ex- offi ci al of the Suhart o r egi m e. Putanotherw ay , the I J det erm i ned thatpet i t i oner had fa i l ed t o s how thatthe B al i bom bi ng even pa r t l yt ar get ed thi s gr oup, l etal one demonstr at ed a “ cl earpr obabi l i ty ” thatpet i t i onerw oul d be per s ecut ed. W e do not bel i eve thatthe r ecor d compel s a contr aryconcl us i on. P et i t i on er al so con t end s that the IJ vi olat ed d ue p rocess byexh i bit i ng bias against h im a n d a lleg e d lyp re -ju d g in g th e m e rits o f h is a p p lica tio n . A n o n -c iti z e n h a s a rig h t to d u e p ro c e ss in a re m o v a l h e a rin g , w h ich m e a n s a n o p p o rtu n ityto re a so n a b lyp re se n t h is o r h e r c a s e . K h a n v . A tt’ yG e n ., 4 4 8 F .3 d 2 2 6 , 2 3 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ). Such cl ai m s r equi r e a s how i ng of “s ubs t ant i al pr ej udi ce” t o the non- ci t i zen. I d. ( ci t at i onW e not e thatthe t i m el i nes s of pet i t i oner ’ s as y l um appl i cat i on i s notbefor e us , nor 4 w oul d w e have j ur i s di ct i on overthe i s s ue had pe t i t i onerr ai s ed i t . Sukw anputr a v. G o n z a le s , 4 3 4 F .3 d 6 2 7 , 6 3 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). 6 om i t t ed) . U pon r evi ew i ng the r ecor d, w e do notbel i eve thatthe I J pr e- j udged the t i m el i nes s of pet i t i oner ’ s as y l um appl i cat i on, nordi d s he exhi bi tbi as agai ns tthe 4 pet i t i onerori m perm i s s i bl yfai l t o cons i derthe evi dence . T he I J ’ s pr el i m i naryr emar ks m er el ypl ace d pet i t i oneron not i ce a s t o herdoubt s r egar di ng the t i m el i nes s of hi s as y l um appl i cat i on, as he fi l ed the appl i cat i on al m os tni ne y ear s aft erarr i vi ng i n the U . S. , and thatpet i t i onerw oul d be expe ct ed t o addr es s herconce rns . A l though the I J demonstr at ed i m pat i ence w i th t he pet i t i oneratpoi nt s dur i ng hi s t es t i m ony , w e agr ee w i th the B I A t hat th e IJ’ s f ru stra tio n a p p e a rs to h a v e ste m m e d f ro m p e tit io n e r’s in sis ten c e o n tes tify in g in E n g li sh alon g side the c o u rt -ap p o inted tr an slat o r, w h o w as a p p o inted at pe ti ti o n er’s beh est . W e agree al so w i th the B IA that the IJ’ s conf usi on as t o p et i t i on er’ s l ast r es i dence i n I ndones i a ca us ed no pr ej udi ce t o pet i t i oner . N ordo w e bel i eve that peti t i on er has r ai sed anyotherm eri t ori ou s i ssues. F o r t h e a f

o re m e n tio n e d re a s o n s , th e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w w ill b e d e n ie d .