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 1-19-2006 

# K o e v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 04-3894

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . 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 a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Koe v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1740. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1740Alberto R. Gonzales is substitut ed for his predec essor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney Gene ral of * the United States pursua

nt to Rul e 43(c )(2) , Fe deral Rules of Appellate Proc edure . 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. 04- 3894 YU LI A K OE,

Pet i t i oner v. A LB ER TO R. G O N ZA LES, A t t or neyG ener al of t he U ni t ed St at es *

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 o. A 79- 296- 443) Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary13, 2006 B efor e: B A R R Y , A M B R O and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

(F il ed Jan u ary1 9 , 2 0 0 6 ) OP I NI ON A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udge.2

Y ul i a K oe, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of I ndones i a, fi l es a pet i t i on forr evi ew fr om a fi nal o rde r of the B o ard o f Im m igrati o n A p p ea ls ( “B IA ”) a ff irm ing the Im m igrati o n Ju d g e’s ( “I J ”) deni al of herappl i cat i on foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef unde rt he 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 t he B I A ’ s or der pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252. W e w i l l denyt he 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 t he IJ, s o w e w i l l onl ybr i efl yr evi s i tt hem her e. K oe i s an I ndones i an of Chi nes e ethni ci t yw ho t es t i fi ed thats he had be en r epea t edl ys ubj ectt o har as s m ent , al l egedl ybeca us e of he r ethni ci t y . I n s uppor tof t hi s cont ent i on s he r eci t ed both gener al and s peci fi c i ns t ance s of abus e di r ect ed t ow ar ds herand otherethni c C hi nes e. She t es t i fi ed t o s ever al event s of vi ol ence occurr i ng on var i ous I ndones i an i s l ands t hats he ei t herr ead a boutors aw on t el evi s i on w her e ethni c C hi nes e w er e tr eat ed poor l ybyethni c I ndones i ans . She s t at ed t hatt hes e eve nt s , w hi ch occ ur r ed s por adi cal l yovert he cour s e of a deca de, m ade he rfee l bad and oc cas i onal l ys car ed. K oe t es t i fi ed thats he had tr oubl e obt ai ni ng t he r equi r ed id e n tific a tio n c a rd th a t p e o p le in In d o n e sia a re re q u ire d to c a rry , an d b e liev e s th is di ffi cul tys t emm ed fr om herC hi nes e ethni ci t y . She al s o s t at ed thatpeopl e w oul d t ouch h e r b u tto c k s if

sh e w o re p a n ts, c a ll h e r a d irtyC h in e se , an d y e ll “Y o u e a t p o rk ” a t h e r, all o f w h ic h s h e f

o u n d to b e o f

f e n s iv e . I n addi t i on, s he des cr i bed fours peci fi c i nci dent s of al l eged pe r s ecut i on t hatKo e ’s a sylum a pp lic atio n w a s n e ve r r

ule d u po n b y theIJ bec a

us e sh e vo luntari ly

wi thd rew i t 1 from conside ration, admitting that it was untimely and that extraordinar

y circ umstances did not exis t to ex cuse its untimeliness. She therea fter procee ded bef ore theIJonly

upon her wi thh oldingof

re mov a l and

CA T c la ims . 3 occurr ed ei t hert o herorherfami l y . Fi r s t , s he t es t i fi ed t o a 1997 i nci dentw her e s he w as ro b b e d a t k n if

e p o in t w h ile s h e sa t in h e r c a r a t a tra f f ic lig h t. S e c o n d , sh e tes tifie d th a t a beautys al on t hats he ow ned w as bur ned dur i ng a 1998 r i ot . T hi r d, s he s t at ed thather f a m i l y’ s s t o r e w a s l o o t e d b y e t h n i c I n d o n e s i a n s i n a n o t h e rr i o tt h a ts a m e ye a r . F i n a l l y, s he des cr i bed an i nci dentoccurr i ng i n D ece m ber1998, w her e a gr oup of hom el es s m en ent er ed a t axi i n w hi ch s he w as r i di ng, hel d a kni fe t o hert hr oat , r obbed herand then to u c h e d a n d k is s e d h e r. Fol l ow i ng a br i ef vi s i tt o herfami l yi n Si ngapor e i n 1999, K oe w as admi t t ed t o t he U n ited S tate s o n N o v e m b e r 9 , 1 9 9 9 , o n a n o n -im m ig ra n t v isa w ith a u th o riz a tio n to r emai n i n t he countr yunt i l M ay8, 2000. K oe r emai ned pas tt hatdat e, and on M ar ch 26, 2001, t he I N S com m ence d t he pr es entdepor t at i on pr ocee di ngs agai ns therbys er vi ng her w i t h a N ot i ce t o A ppear . T he I J r ej ect ed al l of K oe’ s cl ai m s forr el i ef, fi ndi ng t hatK oe fai l ed t o pr ovi de anyevi dence of t or tur e orper s ecut i on s uffi ci entt o m er i tw i t hhol di ng of r emoval orr el i ef unde rC A T . T he B I A aff i r m ed the I J w i t houtopi ni on. T hi s pet i t i on for 1 r evi ew fol l ow ed. II. B eca us e t he B I A adopt ed and a ffi r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on w i t houtaddi t i onal comm ent , w e r evi ew t he dec i s i on of t he I J . T arr aw al l yv. A s hcr oft , 338 F. 3d 180, 184In her brief to the B IA, Koe doe s state in her introduc tory sentenc e that she is appe alingthe IJ ’s 2 denial of a sylum, withholdi ngof re moval and re lief under CAT. Nowhere in her

brief, how ever , does she de velop her

argument on why

the IJerred in deny

ing relief under CAT. We find such a perf unctory mention of an unsupporte d contention to be insuffic ient to consider it raised on appeal to the BIA. Cf. Dillinger v. Caterpillar, I

nc., 959 F .2d 430, 447 (3d Cir. 1992) (stating that a pa ssi ngre ferenc e to a

c la im i n a

n a pp e llatebrie f w ith out f

ur ther d e ve lop me nt i s insufficient to pre serveit for appe al). 4 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . W hethera pet i t i onerhas demonst r at ed pas tper s ecut i on ora cl ear p ro b a b ili tyo f

f u tu re p e rse c u tio n is a f

a c tu a l d e ter m in a tio n su b jec t o n lyto th e h ig h ly defe r ent i al s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d. I . N . S. 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, t hi s C our tw i l l uphol d t he fi ndi ngs of t he B I A unl es s t he evi dence “not onl ys uppor t s a contr aryconcl us i on, butcompel s i t . ” A bdi l l e v. A s hcr oft , 242 F. 3d 477, 4 8 3 -48 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). III . N o tw ith sta n d in g th e c o n ten tio n s m a d e b yK o e to th is C o u rt th a t th e IJ e rre d in deny i ng C A T r el i ef, w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew t he I J ’ s deni al of t hi s cl ai m . I n her br i ef t o t he B I A , K oe onl yar gued t hatt he I J err ed i n i t s deni al of w i t hhol di ng of r emoval an d n ev er a d d resse d w h ythe a d v erse C A T ruln g w as in erro r. T h e B IA w as th ere fo re 2 neverabl e t o cons i deranyar gum ent s ot hert han thos e r el at i ng t o t he w i t hhol di ng of r emoval cl ai m . B eca us e K oe di d notexhaus tt hi s cl ai m befor e the B I A , i tw as not p re s e rv e d f

o r o u r r e v ie w a n d w e th e re f o re la c k ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w it. S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1252( d) ( 1) ( “A cour tm ayr evi ew a fi nal or derof r emoval onl yi f . . . t he al i en has5

exhaus t ed al l admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es avai l abl e t o t he al i en as of r i ght . ”) ; Z heng v. G o n za les, 4 2 2 F . 3 d 9 8 , 1 0 7 -10 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (“T h e f ail u re to e x h au st th is cl aim b ef o re t he B I A ‘ bar s cons i der at i on of par t i cul arques t i ons notr ai s ed i n an appe al t o t he [B IA ]. ’”). Si m i l ar l y , w e l ack the abi l i t yt o r evi ew K oe’ s cl ai m t hatt he I J err ed i n notgr ant i ng as y l um r el i ef. For t hi s m at t er , i ti s nota ques t i on of w hethers he exha us t ed herr emedi es befor e the B I A ; r ather , K oe neve rr ece i ved a f i nal rul i ng fr om t he I J on heras y l um pet i t i on. K oe w i t hdr ew t he as y l um appl i cat i on as unt i m el ydur i ng t he hea r i ng and acknow l edged thatt her e w er e no extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s t hatcoul d excus e her d il atoryap p li ca ti o n . “T o ex h au st a claim . . . an ap p li ca n t m u st fir st r aise the issue b ef o re t he B I A orI J . ” B onhom etr e v. G onzal es , 414 F. 3d 442, 447 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . B eca us e K oe w i t hd rew her asy l um app l i cat i on and nev er r ecei ved a fi nal ruli ng from t he IJ, regar dles s of t he t i m el i nes s of t he appl i cat i on, w e ther efor e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew anycl ai m s on ap p ea l con tend ing that a d en ial o f a sy lum reli ef w as in erro r. I V. W e do pos s es s j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew K oe’ s cl ai m s w i t h r es pectt o w i t hhol di ng of re m o v a l. N o n e th e le s s , w e c o n c lu d e th a t h e r c o n te n tio n s o n a p p e a l a re w ith o u t m e ri t. Fi r s t , w e ar e s at i s fi ed thatt he i nci dent s of w hi ch K oe compl ai ns do not“r i s e t o t he l evel o f p e rse c u tio n b e c a u se th e h a rm su f f e re d w a s n o t su f

f icie n tlyse v e re .” L ie v . A sh c ro f t, 396 F. 3d 530, 536 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( hol di ng t hatpet i t i oner , a C hi nes e I ndones i an, di d notKo e a lso argue s th at th e IJ er ro ne ou sly ma dea “ sp e c ulativ e c on c lus ion ” wh e n h e fo un d it 3 incre dible that Koe would rather sit at a stoplight and beacc osted by “knifewieldingthugs”than violate the tra ffic la

ws and e scapein her a

utomobile by

runninga re d light. While the IJ ’s comments may

appea r spec ulative to some, we c annot say they areunrea sonable in the c ontextof the situation describe d to him. The IJ , howeve r, found all the other portions of Koe ’s testimony to be “ba sically

. . . cre dible.” 6 qual i fyforas y l um r el i ef, a l es s oner ous s t andar d t han w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , w hen pet i t i on w as bas ed upon t w o i s ol at ed i nci dent s of r obberybynat i ve I ndones i ans ) . 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 t hatt 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 t r eatm entt hatours oci etyr egar ds a s u n f a i r , u n j u s t , o re v e n u n l a w f

u l o ru n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l . ” F a t i n , 1 2 F . 3 d a t1 2 4 0 . We acc or di ngl yagr ee w i t h t he I J t hatK oe has notbeen the vi ct i m of per s ecut i on butr ather has unfor tunat el ybeen, t o quot e t he I J , “i n t he w r ong pl ace att he w r ong t i m e” i n her repeat ed v i ct i m i zat i on byst reetcri m e, ho od l um s and thug s. 3 M oreove r, i n li gh tof o ur det erm i nati on t hat K oe h as not been the vi ct i m of p ast per s ecut i on, w e al s o agr ee w i t h t he B I A and the I J t hatK oe i s notent i t l ed t o w i t hhol di ng o f re m o v a l b e c a u se sh e f

a iled to sh o w a c lea r p ro b a b ili tyth a t h e r life o r f re e d o m w o u ld be thr eat ened on a ccountof per s ecut i on i f s he r etur ned t o I ndones i a. See I . N . S. v. St evi c, 467 U . S. 407, 429- 430 ( 1984) . A n al i en i s ent i t l ed t o w i t hhol di ng of r emoval onl yi f s he c a n d e m o n stra te a “ ‘c lea r p ro b a b ili ty ’ th a t [ h e r] lif e o r f re e d o m w o u ld b e th re a ten e d in7

t he pr opos ed countr yof depor t at i on” bec aus e of “ ‘ r ace , r el i gi on, [or ] nat i onal i t y . ’ ” T ar aw al l yv. A s hcr oft , 338 F. 3d at186 ( quot i ng 8 U . S. C . § 1231( b) ( 3) ( A ) ; ci t at i ons omi t t e d) . “ [C] l e a rpr ob a bi l i t ymea ns ‘ mor e l i ke l yt ha n n ot . ’ ” I d. ( qu ot i ng St e vi c , 46 7 U. S. a t 4 2 9 -4 3 0 ). F in a lly , w e f

in d K o e ’s a ttem p t to lin k th e c u lp a b ili tyf o r th e se a c ts o f

v io len c e to t he I ndones i an governm entt o be w i t houtm er i t . N ot w i t hs t andi ng t he s ever i t yort he re a so n s f o r th e in c id e n ts o f

p e rse c u tio n , the p e tit io n e r m u st lin k th e p e rse c u tio n e ith e r to t he governm entorgr oups t hatt he governm enti s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o contr ol . G ao v. A shcroft , 29 9 F . 3d at27 2. K oe argu es t hat s he h as been persecut ed b y“N at i on al i st I ndones i ans ” w hom t he governm enti s unw i l l i ng orunabl e t o s t op. H er e, how ever , t he r ecor d i s ent i r el ydevoi d of anyevi dence i ndi cat i ng t hatt he I ndones i an governm entw as unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o contr ol anygr oup “per s ecut i ng” K oe on ac countof herr ace , re lig io n o r n a tio n a lity. In sum , even i f w e accep tas t rue K oe’s t est i m on yt hat, on accou nt of her C hinese ethni ci t y , herbeautys al on w as bur ned i n a 1998 r i ot , herfami l y ’ s s t or e w as l oot ed that s ame y earand on numer ous occa s i ons s he w as r obbed, s om et i m es atkni fe poi nt , t he evi dence i n t he r ecor d does notcompel us t o fi nd t hatt hes e ac t s ei t herr i s e t o t he l evel of p e rse c u tio n , ind ica te a c lea r p ro b a b ili tyth a t K o e ’s lif e w o u ld b e th re a ten e d o n re tu rn to I ndones i a ors how t hatt he dee ds w er e l i nked t o governm ent al act i on orpurpos eful i nact i on.8 V. W e have cons i der ed al l cont ent i ons pr es ent ed byt he 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.