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 Third C irc uit 12-20-2007 

# Pangem an an v

. Atty Gen U SA P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-2031

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://digit alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by 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 Third C irc uit at V ill 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 by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " P ange m an an v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 28. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2007/28H onor abl e Paul S. D i amond, D i s tr i ctJ udge of the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfor * th e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f

P e n n s y lv a n ia , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n . 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. 06- 2031 HARRY P ANGE M ANAN M AR I YANA S UNAR T O, P eti ti o n ers

v. AT T ORNE Y GE NE RA L OF TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

__________ Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the U ni t ed St at es D epartm entof J us t i ce B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls B I A N o. A 96- 265- 808/ 809 Im m i grat i on Judg e: E ug ene P ug l i ese

__________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

on N ovember30, 2007 B efor e: B A R R Y , FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udges , and D I A M O N D , D i s tr i ctJ udge. * ( Fi l ed: D ece m ber20, 2007)

___________ OP I NI ON

____________2

D I A M O N D , D i s tr i ctJ udge. H arryPangemanan and hi s w i fe, M ar i y ana Sunart o - - both nat i ves and ci t i zens of I ndones i a - - pet i t i on forr evi ew of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ’ ( "BIA ") deni al of Pangemanan’ s r eques tforcanc el l at i on of r emoval , and Sunart o’ s r eques tforw i thhol di ng of rem ov al and prot ect i on un der the C on ven t i on A gainstT orture ( "C A T ") . W e dis m i ss P ang em anan ’s peti t i on for l ack o f j uri sdi ct i on , and den yS un art o’s pet i t i on on the m eri t s. I. Pet i t i oner s ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es w i th val i d vi s as : Pangemanan i n 1993 and S u n arto in 1 9 9 8 . P eti ti o n ers m arried o n Ju ly2 1 , 2 0 0 0 , an d h av e a fo u r-y ea r old d au g h ter, w h o is a U n ite d S ta te s c itiz e n . O n J anuary2, 2004, r emoval pr ocee di ngs w er e i ni t i at ed aga i ns tPet i t i oner s . T he N ot i ces t o A ppearchar ged thatPet i t i oner s w er e r emovabl e as al i ens w ho r emai ned i n the U n ite d S ta te s lo n g e r t h a n p e rm itte d . Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A c t § 2 3 7 (a )( 1 )( B ), 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 (a )( 1 )( B ). O n M ar ch 18, 2004, Pet i t i oner s appea r ed bef or e an I m m i gr at i on J udge ( "I J ") and conce ded thattheyw er e r emovabl e as char ged. A ta cont i nued hea r i ng on M ay13, 2004, Pangemanan i ndi cat ed thathe w oul d appl yforcanc el l at i on of r emoval bas ed upon har ds hi p t o hi s daught er . Sunar t o i ni t i al l ys oughtas y l um , and al s o i ndi cat ed thats he w oul d appl yforw i thhol di ng of r emoval and C A T pr ot ect i on. She eventual l yw i thdr ew h e r a s y lu m re q u e s t a n d p ro c e e d e d o n ly o n th e re m a in in g c la im s .3

O n N o v em b er 9 , 2 0 0 4 , the IJ c o n d u cted a m erit s h ea ri n g at w h ich b o th P eti ti o n ers t es t i fi ed. T he I J rul ed thatPangemanan w as notel i gi bl e forcanc el l at i on of r emoval b e c a u se h e d id n o t sh o w th a t h is re m o v a l w o u ld re su lt i n e x c e p tio n a l o r e x tre m e ly u n u s u a l h a rd s h ip to h is d a u g h te r. I N A § 2 4 0 A (b ), 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 b (b ). S u n arto testi fied to d ifficu lt ies sh e h ad ex p erien ce d in In d o n esia: th at he r fa m il y ’s h o m e w a s b u rn e d d o w n w h e n sh e w a s f iv e -y e a rs o ld (so m e th irty -n in e y e a rs a g o ); th a t in 1 9 8 0 sh e m o v e d to Ja k a rta a n d c h a n g e d h e r n a m e to o n e th a t w a s m o re typ ica lly I ndones i an i n the hope thatthi s w oul d hel p herfi nd empl oym ent ; and thats he w as r obbed sev era l t im es b ec au se sh e w as C h ines e C h ri sti an . P an g em an an test ifi ed that S u n arto’s f if tee n -y e a r o ld so n (f

ro m a n o th e r re latio n sh ip ), S u n a rto ’s s ib lin g s, a n d h e r p a re n ts s til l l i ve in I nd on esi a. T he IJ not ed thatthere w as no ev i den ce sugg est i ng that anyof those i ndi vi dual s have e vers uffe r ed har ds hi p beca us e theyar e C hi nes e C hr i s t i ans . B as ed on h is assess m en t of

the e v iden ce an d h is un ce rt aintyas to S u n arto’s c red ibil ity , the IJ d e ter m in e d th a t S u n a rto d id n o t sh o w th a t sh e w o u ld lik e lyb e p e rse c u ted o r to rtu re d if s he r eturns t o I ndones i a. A ccor di ngl y , the I J rul ed thatSunar t o w as notel i gi bl e for wi th h o l d i n g o f

r e mov a l o rp r o t e c t i o n u n d e rth e CA T. I n acc or dance w i th hi s r ej ect i on of Pet i t i oner s ’ cl ai m s , the I J di r ect ed the r emoval of both Pet i t i oner s i f theyfai l ed t o l eave the U ni t ed St at es i n acc or dance w i th the p r i v i l e g e o f

v o l u n t a ryd e p a r tu r e . On De c e mb e r1 , 2 0 0 4 , P e t i t i o n e r s a p p e a l e d t o th e BI A, w h ich d ism iss e d th e a p p e a l an d iss u e d its d e c isio n “ a d o p tin g a n d a f f irm in g th e u lti m a te4

c o n c lu s io n ” o f

th e IJ . T h e B IA a g re e d th a t P a n g e m a n a n f a iled to e sta b lish th a t h is re m o v a l w o u ld re su lt in e x c e p tio n a l o r e x tre m e lyu n u su a l h a rd sh ip to h is d a u g h ter . A lth o u g h S u n a rto so u g h t to r evi ve heras y l um cl ai m , s he di d notper s uade the B I A thats he metthe exc ept i on t o the o n e -ye a r l im ita tio n s p e ri o d f o r f ilin g a n a s y lu m a p p lic a tio n . S e e 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .4 (a )( 2 ). T h e B IA n o ted th a t th e IJ d id n o t ad e q u a telya d d re ss S u n a rto ’s c o n ten tio n th a t sh e w o u ld su ff er p erse cu ti o n if sh e re turn ed to In d o n esia. (A p p . at A -2.) C red it ing S u n arto’s t es t i m onybefor e the I J , the B I A found thatal though s om e C hi nes e C hr i s t i ans s uffe r har as s m entand di s cr i m i nat i on, ther e i s pr es ent l yno patt ern orpr 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. I tbas ed thi s fi ndi ng on tw o r ece ntSt at e D epartm ent rep o rt s, an d o n the e x p erien ce o f S u n arto’s e x tend ed fa m il y-- all C h ines e C h ri sti an s -- w ho have be en l i vi ng i n I ndones i a w i thouti nci dent . A ccor di ngl y , the B I A r ej ect ed Sunar t o’ s ar gum entthati tw as m or e l i kel ythan nots he w oul d s uffe rper s ecut i on or t or tur e i f r eturned t o I ndones i a. P a n g e ma n a n a n d S u n a r t o t i me l yp e t i t i o n e d th i s Co u r tf o rr e v i e w. I I . P a n g e m a n a n a sk s u s to re v iew th e B IA ’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t h is re m o v a l w o u ld notr es ul ti n exce pt i onal orextr emel yunus ual har ds hi p t o hi s daught er . W e ar e w i thout j ur i s di ct i on t o conducts uch a r evi ew . See M endez - M or anche l v. A s hcr oft , 338 F. 3d 1 7 6 , 1 7 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (“ B e c a u se w e h o ld th a t th e iss u e o f w h e th e r [ a p e tit io n e r] m e e ts5

the har ds hi p r equi r ementi s a di s cr et i onarydeci s i on bythe B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A p p e a ls , w e la c k ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w th e d e c is io n a n d w e w ill d is m is s th e a c tio n .” ). A ccordi ng l y , w e w i l l no tadd res s the m eri t s of P ang em anan ’s con t enti on s, and dis m i ss hi s pet i t i on. III . T hi s C our thas j ur i s di ct i on t o hearSunar t o’ s pet i t i on. 8 U . S. C . §§ 1252( a) ( 1) and ( b ) ( 1 ) . W h e r e , a s h e r e , th e B I A i s s u e d a d e c i s i o n o n th e m e r i t s ( a n d n o ts i m p l y a su m m a rya f

f irm a n c e ), w e re v iew th e B IA ’s, n o t th e IJ’ s, d e c isio n . S e e G a o v . A sh c ro f t, 2 9 9 F . 3 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). W e m u st up h o ld the B IA ’s fa ctua l fi n d ing s if theyare “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. ” I N S v. E l i as - Z aca r i as , 502 U . S. 478, 481 ( 1992) . W e w i l l rul e that su b stan ti al ev iden ce is l ac k ing o n lyif “the ev iden ce n o t on lysu p p o rt s a c o n tr ary co n clus ion , b u t com p els i t. ” A b d il le v. A sh cro ft, 2 4 2 F . 3 d 4 7 7 , 4 8 3 -84 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ); see also 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(4 )(B ). I V. O n appea l , Sunar t o has agai n abandone d heras y l um cl ai m . R ather , s he ar gues thatthe B I A err oneous l ydeni ed herr eques t s forw i thhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef unde r the C A T . T o b e e n ti tl ed to w ith h o lding o f re m o v al, S u n arto m u st de m o n str ate tha t th ere i s a “c l earpr obabi l i ty ” thats he w i l l be per s ecut ed on ac countof a pr ot ect ed gr ound w hen s he r eturns t o I ndones i a. See 8 U . S. C . § 1231( b) ( 3) ; I N S v. St evi c, 467 U . S. 407,6

4 2 4 (19 8 4 ). “T h e q u esti o n u n d er tha t [clea r pro b ab il ity ] st an d ard is w h ethe r i t i s m o re lik e ly th a n n o t th a t th e a lie n w o u ld b e s u b je c t to p e rs e c u tio n .” S te v ic , 4 6 7 U .S . a t 4 2 4 . A s how i ng of pas tper s ecut i on gi ves r i s e t o a r ebutt abl e pr es um pt i on of a w el l - founded f e a r o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n . 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 6 (b )( 1 ). T o q u a lifyf

o r re lief u n d e r th e C A T , S u n a rto m u st e sta b lish “ th a t itis m o re lik e ly th a n n o t th a t . . . s h e w o u ld b e to rtu re d if re m o v e d ” to In d o n e s ia . 8 C .F .R . § 208. 16( c) ( 2) . T or tur e means i nfl i ct i ng “s ever e pai n ors uffe r i ng, w hetherphy s i cal or m e n tal, . . . o n a p e rso n . . . fo r a n yre a so n b a se d o n d isc rim in a tio n . . ., w h e n su c h p a in ors uffe r i ng i s i nfl i ct ed byoratthe i ns t i gat i on of orw i th the cons entoracqui es cenc e of a p u b lic o f

f ic ia l o r o th e r p e rs o n a c tin g in a n o f f ic ia l c a p a c ity.” 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 8 (a )( 1 ). S u n a rto a rg u e s th a t sh e is e n tit led to re lief b e c a u se th e re c o rd sh o w s it is m o re lik e ly th a n n o t th a t b e c a u se sh e is a C h in e se C h ristia n , sh e w o u ld b e p e rse c u ted o r to rtu re d if s he r eturns t o I ndones i a. T h e re is s u b sta n tial e v id e n c e su p p o rtin g th e B IA ’s f in d in g s. A lth o u g h S u n a rto ci t es t o the Stat e D epartm ent r epo rt s on Indo nesi a sugg est i ng pastdis cri m i nati on against C hi nes e C hr i s t i ans , thos e s ame r eport s al s o s how thatther e i s no pr es entpatt ern or p rac ti ce o f su ch d iscri m ination . S ee L ie v. A sh cro ft, 3 9 6 F . 3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 7 -38 (3d C ir . 20 05 ). M oreove r, i ti s und i sputed that Sun art o’s ext end ed fa m i l y , w ho are al l C hinese C hr i s t i ans , have l i ved i n I ndones i a fory ear s w i thouti nci dent . See id . a t 5 3 7 . A ccor di ngl y , the evi dence of r ecor d does notcompel a r es ul tcontr aryt o thatr eac hed by7

th e B IA . V. Sunar t o al s o cont ends thatthe B I A vi ol at ed herdue pr oces s r i ght s . She ar gues that in li g h t of

the B IA ’s de term ination that the IJ d id n o t ade q u atelyad d ress h er f u ture p e r s e c u t i o n c l a i m , i ts h o u l d h a v e r e m a n d e d t o th e I J f o ra n e w h e a r i n g o n th a tc l a i m . We di s agr ee. D ue pr oces s ent i t l ed Sunart o t o “the opportuni tyt o be hea r d ata meani ngful t i m e and i n a meani ngful m anner . ” M atthew s v. E l dr i dge, 424 U . S. 319, 333 ( 1976) ; s ee al s o D i a v. A s hcr oft , 353 F. 3d 228, 239 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . Sunar t o has nots how n thats he w as deni ed s uch an opportuni ty . Fur therm or e, Sunar t o offe r s us no new cont ent i ons or evidence she w ou l d p res ent t o the I J w ere s he g rant ed a seco nd heari ng . In these ci r cumst ance s , ther e w as no due pr oces s vi ol at i on. See W i l s on v. A s hcr oft , 350 F. 3d 3 7 7 , 3 8 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (th ere is “n o d u e p roc ess v iolati o n in the ab sen ce o f p rejud ice.”). V I. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e di s m i s s Pangemanan’ s pet i t i on, and w e deny S u n a rt o ’s p e titio n .