2007 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 7-10-2007 

# T o de 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 . 06-2741

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_2007

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 2007 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 " T ode v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 794. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/794NOT 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- 2741

____________ BG S NG R BA M BA NG W I SAG ENI TOD E,

Pet i t i oner 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 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 96- 259- 805) 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 19, 2007 B e f o re : M c K E E , F IS H E R a n d C H A G A R E S , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: J ul y10, 2007 )

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________W isa g e n i is th e p e tit io n e r’s su rn a m e . T h e re f o re , tha t is h o w w e w ill re f e r to h im 1 th ro u g h o u t. 2 F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . B gs N grB ambang W i s ageni T ode ( “W i s ageni ”) pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the fi nal 1 deci s i on of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) or der i ng hi s r emoval fr om the U ni t ed St at es . H e cl ai m s thatthe B I A , i n aff i r m i ng the dec i s i on of the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) , err ed bydeny i ng hi s appl i cat i ons foras 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 ”) . W e di s agr ee a nd, forthe re a so n s s e t f

o rth b e lo w , w ill d ism iss th e p e tit io n in p a rt a n d d e n yit i n p a rt. I. A s w e w r i t e exc l us i vel yforthe part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i th the fa ctual and p ro c e d u ra l h is to ry o f

th is c a s e , w e w ill s e t f

o rt h o n ly th o s e f

a c ts n e c e s s a ry to o u r a n a lysis . W is a g e n i is a n a tiv e a n d c itiz e n o f In d o n e s ia , o f

C h in e s e e th n ic ity a n d H in d u re lig io n . H e ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es on a vi s i t or ’ s vi s a on J une 13, 2000, and r emai ned i n the U ni t ed St at es aft erthe vi s a expi r ed. H e w as pl ace d i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs on M ar ch 31, 2 0 0 3 , w h e n th e D e p a rtm e n t o f H o m e lan d S e c u rityiss u e d a N o tice to A p p e a r. A t h is i ni t i al appea r ance i n fr ontof the I J , W i s ageni conce ded r emovabi l i ty , butm ade a p p l i c a t i o n s f

o ra s y l u m, wi th h o l d i n g o f r e mov a l , a n d p r o t e c t i o n u n d e rth e CA T. A t a s u b se q u e n t h e a rin g , W isa g e n i tes tifie d re g a rd in g h is lif e in In d o n e sia p rio r to 2 0 0 0 . W isa g e n i w a s ra ise d o n L o m b o k Isla n d , In d o n e sia , w h e re h e liv e d w ith h is p a re n tsT h e c o w is a sa c re d a n im a l in th e H in d u re lig io n , an d th e sla u g h ter o f a c o w is 2 f o rb id d e n . See N ih a l M a th u r, The G ent l e C ow , avai labl e at h t tp : //www .j u d yp a t . c o m/ i n d i a / c o w. h t m. 3 u n til 1 9 9 7 . In J u ly 1 9 9 7 , ri o ts b ro k e o u t o n L o m b o k , in c lu d in g b u rn in g a n d lo o tin g . D ur i ng thos e r i ot s , W i s ageni w as beat en w i th a bamboo st i ck byone mem berof the mob, an d h is fam il y ’s st o re a n d h o m e w ere b u rne d . W isag en i i n d icated that thes e riots w ere m o tiv a ted b yp o lit ica l an d re lig io u s re a so n s a s, tw o m o n th s p rio r to th e rio ts, th e tem p le w her e he w or s hi ped had be en dous ed w i th cow bl ood and a gol den s t atue fr om the 2 t empl e had be en s t ol en. T he dayfol l ow i ng the r i ot s , W i s ageni m oved fr om L om bok t o M al ang, I ndones i a, w her e he l i ved forthr ee y ear s w i thoutanyfur theri nci dent . H ow ever , he i ndi cat ed thathe w as o n an “e n em y ” li st an d fe are d that h e w o u ld b e k il led if h e re turn ed to L o m b o k . In S e p t e mb e r1 9 9 9 , Wi s a g e n i tr a v e l e d t o J a p a n , v o l u n t a r i l yr e tu rn i n g t o I n d o n e s i a a f t e rt wo m on ths. F o ll o w ing W isag en i’ s testi m o n y , the IJ issu ed an o ral de cisi o n d en y ing W isag en i’ s appl i cat i ons . I ni t i al l y , he deni ed the as y l um appl i cat i on as unt i m el y , fi ndi ng that W i s ageni had bee n i n t he U ni t ed St at es s i nce J une 2000, buthad notappl i ed foras y l um un t i l F ebruary13 , 20 03 , al m ostthree y ears l at er. In addit i on , the IJ m ade an adv ers e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on, s t at i ng thathe found much of W i s ageni ’ s t es t i m ony contr adi ct ory . H ow ever , the I J fur thers t at ed that , even i f he f ound W i s ageni cr edi bl e and4

W i s ageni ’ s as y l um appl i cat i on had bee n t i m el y , al l r el i ef w oul d s t i l l have t o be deni ed as W i s ageni fai l ed t o pr ove anypas tper s ecut i on bas ed on a pr ot ect ed gr ound. W i s ageni fi l ed a t i m el yappea l w i th the B I A . I n i t s br i ef de ci s i on, the B I A found thatthe I J w as corr ectt o denythe appl i cat i on foras y l um as unt i m el yfi l ed. I n addi t i on, al though i tfound thatthe I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on w as nots uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence , the B I A agr eed thateven i f eve rythi ng W i s ageni s ai d w as true, he d id n o t pro v ide s u ff

ici en t evid en ce o f p ast p erse cu ti o n , a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on orfea rof t or tur e upon r eturn t o I ndones i a. Wi s a g e n i t i me l yf

i l e d th i s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew a fi nal or derof r emoval fr om the B I A pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 1) . W her e, as her e, the B I A has adopt ed a port i on of the I J ’ s deci s i on, w e re v ie w th e d e c is io n s o f b o th th e B IA a n d th e IJ . Shehu v. A t t ’ y G en. , 482 F. 3d 652, 657 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . O urr evi ew i s fors ubs t ant i al evi dence , uphol di ng the dec i s i on of the B I A and the I J i f theyar e “s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr obat i ve evi dence on the r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e. ” Ba la s u b r a ma n r i m v . I NS , 143 F. 3d 157, 161 ( 3d C i r. 19 98 ) ( i nternal quotat i on m arks and cit at i on s om i t t ed). “[T ]he B IA ’s [and IJ ’s ] fi ndi ng[s ] m us tbe uphel d unl es s the evi dence notonl ys uppor t s a contr aryconcl us i on, butcompel s i t . ” A b d ill e v . A sh c ro ft , 2 4 2 F . 3 d 4 7 7 , 4 8 3 -84 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ).5

H o w ev er, w e lac k juri sd ict ion to rev iew W isag en i’ s asy lum claim . T h e IJ a n d B IA pr oper l yfound thatW i s ageni fai l ed t o fi l e an appl i cat i on foras y l um w i thi n one y earof h is la s t e n tr yin to th e U n ite d S ta te s . See 8 U . S. C . § 1158( a) ( 2) ( B ) . W e maynotr evi ew th e ir d e ter m in a tio n th a t W isa g e n i f a iled to sh o w e x tra o rd in a ryc irc u m sta n c e s re latin g to hi s del ayi n fi l i ng. 8 U . S. C . § 1158( a) ( 3) ( “[N ] o courts hal l have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew anydet erm i nat i on bythe A t t orneyG ener al underpar agr aph ( 2) [i ncl udi ng an e x tra o rd in a ryc irc u m sta n c e s d e ter m in a tio n ] . . . .”); T a rr a w a lly v . A sh c ro

ft , 338 F. 3d 180, 1 8 5 -86 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (ho lding that w e a re jurisdicti o n all yb arred fro m rev iew ing the IJ’s orB I A ’ s det erm i nat i on r egar di ng extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s thatl ed t o del ay ed fi l i ng of an as y l um appl i cat i on) . T her efor e, ourr evi ew i s l i m i t ed t o W i s ageni ’ s appl i cat i ons for wi th h o l d i n g o f

r e mov a l a n d p r o t e c t i o n u n d e rth e CA T. III . Pur s uantt o t he I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ct( “I N A ”) , the A t t orneyG ener al m aynotr emove an al i en t o hi s countryof or i gi n i f hi s “l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened i n t hatcountr ybeca us e of [ hi s ] r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a p a rticu lar so c ial g ro u p , o r p o lit ica l o p in io n .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 (b )(3 )(A ). In o rd e r to qual i fyforw i thhol di ng of r emoval under§ 1231, an al i en musts how the thr eatbya cl ear p ro b a b ility. IN

S v . S tev ic , 4 6 7 U . S . 4 0 7 , 4 3 0 (19 8 4 ). “A clea r pro b ab il itym ea n s ‘m o re l i kel ythan not . ’ ” T

a rr a w a lly , 338 F. 3d at186 ( quot i ng S tev ic , 4 6 7 U .S . a t 4 2 9 -3 0 .)6

T he B I A ’ s deci s i on thatW i s ageni fai l ed t o s how bya cl earpr obabi l i tythathi s l i fe o r free d o m w o u ld b e thre aten ed is sup p o rt ed b ysu b stan ti al ev iden ce . W isag en i’ s appl i cat i on forw i thhol di ng of r emoval r es t s on the s i ngl e i nci dentthatoccurr ed dur i ng the 1997 r i ot s on L om bok. A tthatt i m e, W i s ageni w as att acke d bya mem berof the rio tin g m o b a n d h is f

a m ily ’s h o m e a n d b u sin e ss w e re d e stro y e d . H o w e v e r, th is s in g le vi ol entexper i ence dur i ng gener al i zed l aw l es s nes s i s nots uffi ci entt o pr ove that W is a g e n i’ s lif

e o r f re e d o m w o u ld b e th re a te n e d if h e re tu rn e d to h is c o u n tr yo f o ri g in . See Konan v. A t t ’

y G en. , 432 F. 3d 497, 506 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( hol di ng thatvi ol ence dur i ng gener al i zed unr es ti s i ns uffi ci entt o s how pas tper s ecut i on) . Fur therunder cutt i ng W i s ageni ’ s cl ai m i s the fa ctthat , fol l ow i ng the r i oti nci dent , W i s ageni r el ocat ed and l i ved f o r th re e y e a rs w ith o u t in c id e n t, retu rn in g to In d o n e sia b yc h o ice f o llo w in g a tw o -m o n th sojou rn to Jap an . T h e sin g le i n cide n t of v iolen ce fo ll o w ed b ya thre e-y ea r pe ri o d w h ere W isa g e n i li v e d p e a c e f

u llyis s im p lyn o t su f

f icie n t to p ro v e p a st p e rse c u tio n o r f e a r f o r h is lif e a n d lib e rt yu p o n re tu rn to In d o n e s ia . See , e. g. , L ie v . A sh c ro ft , 396 F. 3d 530, 536 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). W i s ageni ’ s cl ai m underthe C A T m us tal s o fai l . I n or dert o r ece i ve pr ot ect i on underthe C A T , a pet i t i onerm us ts how that“i ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthathe ors he wo u l d b e t o r tu r e d i f

r e mo v e d t o th e p r o p o s e d c o u n tryo f r e mo v a l . ” 8 C. F . R. § 208. 16( c) ( 2) . T he t or tur e mustbe i nfl i ct ed bythe governm entorw i th the cons entor a c q u ie s c e n c e o f

a p u b lic o f

f ic ia l. I d. § 208. 18( a) ( 1) . W i s ageni has pr ovi ded no evi dence7

th a t w o u ld in d ica te th a t h e w o u ld b e to rtu re d b yth e In d o n e sia n g o v e rn m e n t if re tu rn e d to I ndones i a orthatthe I ndones i an governm entw oul d acqui es ce i n hi s t or tur e. I n s hor t , W i s ageni ’ s appl i cat i ons forw i thhol di ng of r emoval and pr ot ect i on under th e C A T w e re p ro p e rl yd e n ie d , a n d w e la c k ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w h is a s y lu m c la im . T her efor e, w e w i l l denyhi s pet i t i on forr evi ew of the B I A ’ s deni al of hi s appl i cat i ons for w i thhol di ng of r emoval and pr ot ect i on underthe C A T , and di s m i s s hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew of the as y l um cl ai m forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on.