1 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. 09- 3923

___________ F N U F R E N G K Y , a /k / a F r e n g k y, 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 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 o. A 96- 204- 274) I m m i gr at i on J udge: R obertP. O w ens

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

M ay19, 2010 B efor e: SC I R I C A , SM I T H and W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay24, 2010)

OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

P et i t i on er Frengk y , a ci t i zen o f Indo nesi a and a C hri st i an o f C hinese e th n icity , se e k s re v iew o f a f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l. F o r th e re a so n s th a t f o llo w , w e w illM or e s peci fi cal l y , Fr engkypl eade d nol o cont ender e i n the D auphi n C ountyC our tof 1 C o m m o n P lea s to o n e c o u n t o f c rim in a l co n sp ira c y , in v io latio n o f 1 8 P a . C o n s. S tat. A n n . § 9 0 3 (a)(1). A s w e have not ed pr evi ous l y , “[i ] n M ay1998, ther e w er e s er i ous and w i des pr ead 2 att acks on C hi nes e- ow ned bus i nes s es and homes byM us l i m I ndones i ans , w hi ch l ed t o the deaths of overone thous and peopl e. T hus , 1998 r epr es ent ed a pe r i od of s i gni fi cant vi ol ence and r i ot i ng agai ns ti ndi vi dual s of C hi nes e or i gi n thr oughoutI ndones i a. ” Li e v. A s h c ro f t, 3 9 6 F .3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). 2 d e n yh is p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w . I. F r e n g k ye n t e r e d th e Un i t e d S t a t e s i n M a y2 0 0 1 , a n d h e o v e r s t a y e d th e t i me p e rio d p e rm itt e d b yh is n o n im m ig ra n t v isa . In O c to b e r 2 0 0 5 , F re n g k yw a s c o n v icte d in Penns y l vani a s t at e courtof cr i m i nal cons pi r acy . T her eaf t er , the G overnm enti s s ued 1 F re n g k ya N o tic e to A p p e a r, c h a rg in g h im a s re m o v a b le p u rs u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § § 1 2 2 7 (a )( 1 )( B ) a n d (a )( 2 )( A )( I) .

T o b lo c k h is re m o v a l F re n g k ya p p lied f o r a sy lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l, and r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . A ta hea r i ng befor e an im m ig ra tio n ju d g e (“ IJ” ), F re n g k ytes tifie d th a t h e f e a re d p e rse c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f h is e th n icitya n d re lig io n . T h e IJ s u m m a riz e d th e tes tim o n ya s f o llo w s: F re n g k yw o rk e d a t a pr i nt i ng company ; he w as att acke d atw ork bynat i ve I ndones i ans dur i ng the M ay1998 r i ot s ; dur i ng the att ack, the r i ot er s thr ew s t ones and y el l ed “Chi nes e, C hi nes e”; one of 2 the r i ot er s cutFr engkyw i th a pi ece of br oken gl as s , and the cutr equi r ed s t i t ches ; at v a rio u s ra n d o m tim e s th e re a f ter , n a tiv e In d o n e sia n s th re w sto n e s a t F re n g k ya n d a t h is3

p la c e o f w o rs h ip , a n d th e ys u b

je c te d F re n g k yto v e rb a l h a ra s s m e n t a n d in tim id a tio n . T h e IJ f ir s t d e te rm in e d th a t F re n g k y ’s a s y lu m a p p lic a tio n w a s u n tim e ly. T he I J nextdet erm i ned thatal though Fr engkyhad cr edi bl yt es t i fi ed atthe hea r i ng, Fr engkyhad nonethel es s fai l ed t o demonstr at e thathe w oul d l i kel ybe per s ecut ed or t or tur ed upon r emoval t o I ndones i a. T he I J det erm i ned thatthe i nci dent s of m i s tr eatm ent suffered b yF rengkyw ere notsevere enou gh t o co nst i tute pastpersecut i on . T he IJ al so d eterm ined that “[ t] h ere is si m p lyn o thing in the [r]ec o rd th at estab li sh es th at i t i s m o re l i k e l y th a n n o tth a t[ F r e n g k y] w o u l d b e s u b j e c t e d t o p e r s e c u t i o n i n th e f u tu r e . ” F i n a l l y, th e I J d e t e rmi n e d th a tth e r e c o r d d i d n o td e mo n s tr a t e F r e n g k y ’ s e l i g i b i l i tyf o rCA T p ro te c tio n . T h e B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ) d is m is s e d F re n g k y ’s a p p e a l. T he B IA agreed w i th the I J that Frengk y“i s i neli gibl e for asy l um as a r esul tof [ his ] fai l ur e t o fi l e hi s as y l um appl i cat i on w i thi n one y earof the dat e of hi s arr i val i n the U ni t ed St at es . . . . ” A s forw i thhol di ng of r emoval , the B I A agr eed w i th the I J that“the m i s tr eatm entcl ai m ed by[Fr engky ] does notr i s e t o the l evel of pas tper s ecut i on, ” and that F ren g k yh ad n o t est ab li sh ed that fu ture p erse cu ti o n w as m o re li k elythan n o t. T h e B IA determ i ned that Frengk yhad “fai l ed to est abli sh ei ther that he faced an indi vidual i zed ri sk o f p e rse c u tio n o r th a t th e re w a s a p a ttern o r p ra c tice o f p e rse c u tio n d ire c ted a g a in st e th n ic C h in e se C h ristia n s in In d o n e sia .” F in a lly , the B IA d e ter m in e d th a t F re n g k yf a iled to demonstr at e thathe w oul d l i kel ybe t or tur ed upon r emoval . T hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew4

f o llo w e d . II.

W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w a f i n a l o r d e ro f

r e mo v a l u n d e r8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 1 ). A b d u la i v . A s h c ro f t, 2 3 9 F .3 d 5 4 2 , 5 4 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). “[W ] hen the B I A both adopt s the fi ndi ngs of the I J and di s cus s es s om e of the bas es for the I J ’ s deci s i on, w e have author i tyt o r evi ew the dec i s i ons of both the I J and B I A . ” C hen v. A s hcr oft , 376 F. 3d 215, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . W e r evi ew det erm i nat i ons r egar di ng s t atut oryw i thhol di ng of r emoval underthe s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d, and w e w i l l not di s turb thatdet erm i nat i on “unl es s the evi dence notonl ys upport s a contr aryconcl us i on, butcompel s i t . ” Zhang v. G onzal es , 405 F. 3d 150, 155 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( quot at i ons o m itte d ). III .

T he onl ycl ai m r ai s ed byFr engkyon appea l i s thatthe B I A err ed i n fi ndi ng hi m i nel i gi bl e fors t atut oryw i thhol di ng of r emoval . Fr engkyar gues that“the cumul at i ve eff ectof al l the i nci dent s des cr i bed . . . r i s es t o the l evel of per s ecut i on w i thi n the m eani ng of the I N A . ” Fr engkyal s o ar gues that“[t ] her e i s a w el l document ed patt ern or p ra c tice o f

p e rse c u tio n d ire c ted to w a rd s C h in e se a n d C h in e se C h ristia n s liv in g in In d o n e sia ,” a n d th a t “if f o rc e d to re tu rn to In d o n e sia , . . . [ h e ] is s u re to f a ll v ictim to th is p a tte rn o r p ra c tic e o f

p e rs e c u tio n .”5 “ T h e th re sh o ld f

o r e sta b lish in g e lig ib ili tyf o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l is h ig h e r th a n th a t f

o r e sta b lish in g e n tit lem e n t to a sy lu m a n d re q u ire s th e a lien to demonstr at e a c l earpr obabi l i tythat , upon r emoval t o the countryof or i gi n, hi s orherl i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened on a ccountof one of the s t atut or i l yenumer at ed fa ct or s . ” O bal e v. A t t ’ yG en. , 453 F. 3d 151, 161 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . T he cl ear p ro b a b ili tysta n d a rd is m e t if F re n g k ysh o w s th a t itis m o re lik e lyth a n n o t th a t h e w ill s u f f e r p e rs e c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f h is e th n ic ity o r r e lig io n if re m o v e d to In d o n e s ia . S e e M ia h v . A s h c ro f

t, 3 4 6 F .3 d 4 3 4 , 4 3 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). W e conc l ude thats ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the B I A ’ s w i thhol di ng of r emoval det erm i nat i on. T he di s cr et e i nci dent s of m i norphy s i cal and verbal abus e as t es t i fi ed t o byFr engky , w hethers t andi ng al one ori n the aggr egat e, ar e nots ever e enough t o r i s e t o the l evel of pas tper s ecut i on. See A hm ed v. A s hcr oft , 341 F. 3d 214, 217 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( “per s ecut i on connot es extr eme behavi or , i ncl udi ng ‘ thr eat s t o l i fe, c o n f in e m e n t, t o rtu re , an d e c o n o m ic r e stric tio n s s o se v e re th a t th e yc o n stitu te a th re a t to l i fe orfr eedom’ ”) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o W ong, 539 F. 3d at232; L i e v. A s hcr oft , 396 F . 3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 6 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( h o l d i n g th a te th n i c Ch i n e s e I n d o n e s i a n ’ s “ a c c o u n to f two 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 theft of s om e per s onal pr opertyand a mi nori nj ury , i s nots uffi ci ent l ys ever e t o be cons i der ed p erse cu ti o n ”); A b d il le v. A sh cro ft, 2 4 2 F . 3 d 4 7 7 , 4 9 4 -95 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) (m ere g e n e ra lize d law les sn e ss a n d v io len c e b e tw e e n d iv e rse p o p u latio n s is n o t su f f icie n t toW e r ej ectFr engky ’ s att empt t o di s t i ngui s h L i e. I n both cas es , the foc al i nci dent s of 3 vi ol ence occurr ed dur i ng the country - w i de r i ot s i n m i d- 1998, and theyi nvol ved a c ut ( fr om a kni fe i n L i e, and fr om a br oken bott l e i n thi s cas e) r equi r i ng s t i t ches forthe p e tit io n e rs. L ie’ s a ttac k w a s n o m o re “ ra n d o m a n d iso late d ” th a n F re n g k y ’s, a n d th e ir in ju rie s w e re e q u a llyn o n -life th re a ten in g . S e e L ie, 3 9 6 F .3 d a t 5 3 3 . T h e re is n o th in g in the r ecor d t o s uppor tFr engky ’ s al l egat i on thathe w as the vi ct i m of s ever e mi s tr eatm ent s ubs equentt o the i nci denti n M ay1998. 6 g ran t asy lum ). 3

W e a lso c o n clud e tha t th e B IA ’s ap p raisal of the likeliho o d o f f

u ture per s ecut i on r es t s on s ubs t ant i al evi dence . Speci fi cal l y , w e agr ee w i th the B I A that Fr engkyhas fai l ed t o demonstr at e ei therthati ti s l i kel yhe w i l l be i ndi vi dual l yt ar get ed forper s ecut i on upon r emoval , orthatther e exi s t s a “pa t t ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on of a g r o u p o f p e r s o n s s i mi l a r l ys i tu a t e d . . . . ” 8 C. F . R. § 2 0 8 . 1 3 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( i i i ) ( A) . I n Wo n g , we cons i der ed St at e D epartm entR eport s fr om 1999, 2003, and 2004, and conc l uded thatthe r eport s di d notdemonstr at e per s ecut i on of ethni c C hi nes e C hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a thatw as s uffi ci ent l y“s y s t emi c, pervas i ve, oror gani zed” t o cons t i tut e a pa t t ern orpr act i ce. See 539 F. 3d at233- 34. W hi l e the bac kgr ound m at er i al s i n thi s admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d, i ncl udi ng a 2 0 0 6 S tate D e p a rtm e n t R e p o rt, su g g e st th a t d isc rim in a tio n a g a in st re lig io u s a n d e th n ic m i nor i t i es i n I ndones i a cont i nues ( though i s , perhaps , i n decl i ne) , di s cr i m i nat i on i s not ip so fa c to per s ecut i on. See J arbough v. A t t ’ yG en. , 483 F. 3d 184, 191 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( “A bus i ve tr eatm entand har as s m ent , w hi l e al w ay s depl or abl e, m aynotr i s e t o the l evel ofper s ecut i on. ”) ; s ee a l s o Pi et er s on v. A s hcr oft , 364 F. 3d 38, 44 ( 1s tC i r . 2004)

(“D iscri m ination is no t th e e q u ivalen t of p erse cu ti o n . . . . ”). Ac c o r d i n g l y , 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.

7