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 6-14-2006 

# Ang 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 . 05-3312

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 " An g v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 897. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/897T h e H o n o ra b le A lan D . L o u rie , C irc u it Ju d g e f o r th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls * fort he Feder al C i r cui t , s i tt i ng bydes i gnat i on. 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. 05- 3312 T HI AN HOK ANG; U N T A R I K U S U M A D E W I,

P eti ti o n ers v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F THE U NI TED STATES

R es pondent Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r der 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- 838- 364, A 95- 838- 365) Im m i grat i on Judg e: D on al d V i ncen tF erl i se Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 13, 2006 B efor e: FI SH E R , A L D I SE R T and LO U R I E C i r cui tJ udges * (F il ed Ju n e 1 4 , 2 0 0 6 ) OPI NI ON OF TH E CO UR T2

A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udge. T hi an H ok A ng and U nt ar i K us um a D ew i pet i t i on forr evi ew fr om a fi nal or derof t he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff i r m i ng the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) deni al of thei rappl i cat i ons foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the B I A ’ s or der pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252. W e w i l l denythe pet i t i on. I. T he p art i es ar e fam i l i ar w i t h the fact s and p roceedings befo re the B IA and the IJ, s o w e w i l l onl ybr i efl yr evi s i tt hem her e. Pet i t i oner s A ng and D ew i , w ho ar e both ci t i zens a n d n a tiv e s o f

In d o n e sia , co n ten d e d th a t th e yw o u ld b e su b jec t to d isc rim in a tio n , thr e a ts an d p o ssible v iolen ce o n ac co u n t of their C h ines e e thn ici tyan d B u d d h istreli g ion w ere th e yto b e re tu rn e d to In d o n e s ia . II. B eca us e the B I A adopt ed “the fi ndi ngs of the I J and di s cus s [ed] s om e of the bas es fort he I J ’ s deci s i on, ” w e w i l l r evi ew the dec i s i ons of both t he I J and the B I A . H e C hun C hen v. A s hcr oft , 376 F. 3d 215, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . W hethera pet i t i onerhas demonstr at ed pas tper s ecut i on ora cl earpr obabi l i t yof futur e per s ecut i on ar e fa ctual d e t e r mi n a t i o n s s u b

j e c to n l yt o t h e h i g h l yd e f e r e n t i a l s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s t a n d a r d . I NS v. E l i as - Z aca r i as , 502 U . S. 478, 483- 484 ( 1992) ; G ao v. A s hcr oft , 299 F. 3d 266, 272 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . U ndert he s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d, thi s C our tw i l l uphol d t he fi ndi ngs3

of the B I A unl es s t he evi dence “notonl ys uppor t s a contr aryconcl us i on, butcompel s i t . ” A b d il le v. A sh cro ft, 2 4 2 F . 3 d 4 7 7 , 4 8 3 -48 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). III . I n t hei rbr i ef t o t hi s C ourt , A ng and D ew i w ai ved anyappea l of thei rappl i cat i ons forpr ot ect i on underC A T , and have notappea l ed the I J ’ s deni al of thei ras y l um a p p lica tio n s a s b e in g u n tim e ly , a d e ter m in a tio n w h ich in a n ye v e n t w e lac k ju risd ictio n to r evi ew . See 8 U . S. C . § 1158( a) ( 3) ; T arr aw al l yv. A s hcr oft , 338 F. 3d 180, 185- 186 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). W e a re th e re f o re a sk e d to re v iew so lelyth e IJ a n d B IA ’s r e jec tio n s o f

th e ir a p p lic a tio n s f

o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. A n a l i e n s e e k i n g w i t h h o l d i n g o f r e m o v a l m u s te s t a b l i s h b y a “ c l e a rp r o b a b i l i t y” 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 in h is c o u n tr yo f o ri g in b e c a u s e o f

, in tera lia , h is ra c e o r re lig io n . C h a n g v . IN S , 1 1 9 F .3 d 1 0 5 5 , 1 0 5 9 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). T o m e e t th is bur den, t he appl i cantm us tdemonstr at e thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthathe w i l l be per s ecut ed upon hi s r etur n, Senathi r aj ah v. I N S, 157 F. 3d 210, 215 ( 3d C i r . 1998) , w hi ch a p eti ti o n er c an sh o w b yp rov ing eith er p ast p erse cu ti o n o r a li k eli h o o d o f f u ture persecut i on . S ee 8 C . F . R . § 1 20 8. 16 (b) . Indeed , even i f peti t i on ers fai l t o p rove pa st p e rs e c u tio n , w h ic h w o u ld h a v e c re a te d a re b u tta b le p re s u m p tio n o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n , 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 6 (b)(1 )(i ), p eti ti o n ers c an d em o n str ate a clea r pro b ab il ityo f f u ture per s ecut i on bys how i ng ei t hert hati t ’ s m or e l i kel ythan notthattheyw oul d be s i ngl ed out i ndi vi dual l yforper s ecut i on ort hatt her e i s a “pa t t ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on of a gr oup4

of per s ons s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed t o t he appl i canton acc ountof r ace [or ] r el i gi on . . . . ” 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 6 (b )( 2 ). I V. O urr evi ew of the r ecor d l eads us t o agr ee thats ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the IJ’ s d e ter m in a tio n th a t A n g a n d D e w i d o n o t q u a lifyf o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. F irst, w e ar e s at i s fi ed thatt he i nci dent s of w hi ch A ng and D ew i compl ai n do not“r i s e t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on beca us e the harm s uffe r ed w as nots uffi ci ent l ys ever e. ” Li e v. A s hcr oft , 396 F. 3d 530, 536 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( hol di ng thatpet i t i oner , a C hi nes e I ndones i an, d id n o t q u a lifyf

o r a sy lu m re lief

, a le ss o n e ro u s s tan d a rd th a n w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l, w h e n p e titio n w a s b a s e d u p o n tw o is o la te d in c id e n ts o f ro b b e ry b yn a tiv e In d o n e s ia n s ). T he B I A and thi s C our thave a dopt ed a na r r ow defi ni t i on of per s ecut i on, w hi ch “c onnot es e x tre m e b e h a v io r, in c lu d in g ‘th re a ts to life , co n f in e m e n t, t o rtu re , an d e c o n o m ic r es t r i ct i ons s o s ever e thatt heycons t i tut e a thr eatt o l i fe orfr eedom. ’ ” A hm ed v. A s hcr oft , 341 F. 3d 214, 217 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( quot i ng Fat i n v. I N S, 12 F. 3d 1233, 1240 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ) . “[P] er s ecut i on does notencompas s al l tr eatm entthatours oci etyr egar ds as u n f a ir , u n ju s t, o r e v e n u n la w f

u l o r u n c o n s titu tio n a l.” F a tin , 1 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 4 0 . H e re , th e re is n o in d ic a tio n th a t e ith e r A n g o r D e w i h a s s u f f e re d p e rs e c u tio n . N ei t hert es t i fi ed thatt heyw er e eve rpr event ed fr om pr act i ci ng B uddhi s m w hi l e theyl i ved i n I n d o n e s i a . M o r e o v e r , a l t h o u g h An g wi t n e s s e d th e r i o t s i n 1 9 9 7 a n d 1 9 9 8 , a n d De wi obs erved the 1998 r i ot , not hi ng happene d t o ei t herone of them i n t hos e r i ot s as i de fr om5

h a v in g a g e n e ra l f

e a r o f h a rm e v o k e d w ith in th e m . B e f o re th e IJ, A n g h im se lf acknow l edged thatnot hi ng had eve rper s onal l yhappene d t o hi m i n I ndones i a and thathe i s j us tgener al l yafr ai d forhi s s afe t ys houl d he be r eturned. Si m i l ar l y , ther e ar e no i ndi cat i ons t hatD ew i has per s onal l ys uffe r ed anyharm thatr i s es t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on. W e agr ee w i t h t he I J t hatthe one i nci dents he does i ntr oduce – he rbei ng ac co sted in a re stau ran t byfo u r na ti v e M u sli m Ind o n esian s – w as, as the IJ acknow l edged, an i ns t ance of cr i m i nal i t y , notper s ecut i on. A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude that nei t herhas been the vi ct i m of pas tper s ecut i on. W e al s o concl ude thatA ng and D ew i have f ai l ed t o s how ei t herthattheyw i l l be i ndi vi dual l yt ar get ed forper s ecut i on orthatther e i s a patt ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on of ethni c C hi nes e i n I ndones i a. See 8 C . F. R . § 1208. 16( b) ( 2) . T he r ecor d cont ai ns no ev iden ce that A n g an d D ew i w o u ld f ac e a n ind ividu ali ze d ri sk o f p erse cu ti o n u p o n return t o I ndones i a. T o t hi s end, al t hough A ng and D ew i i ndi cat ed thattheyhave numer ous cl os e fa m i l ym ember s i n I ndones i a, theynei t hert es t i fi ed norpr es ent ed evi dence i ndi cat i ng t hatt hes e fa m i l ym ember s had bee n per s ecut ed. See H akee m v. I N S, 273 F. 3d 812, 816 ( 9t h C i r . 2001) ( “A n appl i cant ’ s cl ai m of per s ecut i on i s w eake ned, even under cut , w hen s i m i l ar l y - s i tuat ed fa m i l ym ember s cont i nue t o l i ve i n t he countr yw i t hout in c id e n t . . .”) ( c ited b yL ie, 3 9 6 F .3 d a t 5 3 7 ). C o n se q u e n tly , “[ i]n th is c a se , the re is litt le ev iden ce that [A n g an d D ew i] w o u ld f ac e a n ind ividu ali ze d ri sk o f p erse cu ti o n an ym o re s ever e than thatfac ed by[thei r ] fami l ym ember s ” w ho r emai n i n I ndones i a i n appar ent6

w e ll- b e in g . L ie , 3 9 6 F .3 d a t 5 3 7 . M o reo v er, w e d o n o t agre e w ith A n g an d D ew i’ s co n tention that there is a p att ern o rp r a c t i c e o f

p e r s e c u t i o n o f

e t h n i c Ch i n e s e i n I n d o n e s i a . I n d e e d , i n L i e , i n wh i c h we add res sed t he tr eat m ent of C hinese C hri st i ans i n Indo nesi a rather than et hn i c C hinese as a w hol e, w e r ej ect ed a ne ar l yi dent i cal ar gum ent . T her ei n, w e cons i der ed s i m i l arci t at i ons t o pr es s acc ount s of r i ot s , vandal i s m and r obberyof C hi nes e C hr i s t i ans , butfound thatt he s i tuat i on forC hi nes e C hr i s t i ans had i m pr oved mar kedl ys i nce 1998, and thatthe ci t ed i nci dent s of vi ol ence di d not“appe art o be s uffi ci ent l yw i des pr ead a s t o cons t i tut e a p a ttern o r p ra c tice .” L ie, 3 9 6 F .3 d a t 5 3 7 . W e in d ica ted th a t th is v io len c e a p p e a rs to have be en “w r oughtbyfel l ow ci t i zens ” and w as notthe r es ul tof “gove r nm ent al act i on or acqui es cenc e. ” I d. H er e, not w i t hs t andi ng thei rci t at i on t o var i ous ar t i cl es det ai l i ng the m al t r eatm entof ethni c C hi nes e, A ng and D ew i have notpr es ent ed anyevi dence that w oul d compel us t o br eak w i t h L i e and c oncl ude thatther e i s a patt ern orpr act i ce of p e rse c u tio n a g a in st In d o n e sia n s o f C h in e se e th n icity . A c c o rd in g ly , w e re jec t th e ir arg u m en t th at th ere is a clea r pro b ab il itythat theyw o u ld b e the v ict im s o f f u ture p e rs e c u tio n u p o n re tu rn to In d o n e s ia . * * * * * W e have cons i der ed al l cont ent i ons pr es ent ed bythe part i es and conc l ude thatno fur t herdi s cus s i on i s nece s s ary . T he pet i t i on forr evi ew w i l l be deni ed.