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 1-31-2007 

# G auwi 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 . 05-3980

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 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 " G auwi v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1723. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1723NOT 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 os . 05- 3980 and 05- 5165

____________ S U S A N N A G A U W I; K A S U N A G A U W I, P eti ti o n ers v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES; S E CR E T AR Y OF DE P AR T M E NT OF HOMEL AND S E CU RI T Y,

R e sp o n d e n ts

____________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew fr om the O rd e rs 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 os . A 79 328 707 and A 79 328 708) I m m i gr at i on J udge: R os al i nd K . M al l oy

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

J anuary9, 2007 B e f o re : M c K E E , A M B R O a n d F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: J anuary31, 2007)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________T h e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tu ra liz a tio n S e rv ic e (“ IN S ” ) c e a s e d to e x is t in 2 0 0 3 . 1 P u r s u a n tt o t h e Ho me l a n d S e c u r i t yAc to f 2 0 0 2 , th e e n f

o r c e me n tf

u n c t i o n s o f

th e I NS w er e tr ans ferr ed t o t he D epart m entof H om el and Secur i t y , B ur eau of I m m i gr at i on and C u s to m s E n f

o rc e m e n t. See H om el and Secur i t yA ctof 2002, Pub. L . N o. 107- 296, § 441, 116 St at . 2135, 2192. 2 F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . Susa nna G auw i and herhus band K as una G auw i s eek r evi ew of a J ul y25, 2005 o rde r of the B o ard o f Im m igrati o n A p p ea ls ( “B IA ”) d ism issi n g their ap p ea l and the B IA ’s O ct ob er 28, 20 05 order deny i ng t heirm oti on for r econ si derat i on and reopen i ng . B ecause w e conc l ude thatt hei ras y l um appl i cat i on w as nott i m el yfi l ed and thatthe B I A ’ s deci s i on wa s s u p p o r t e d b ys u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , we wi l l d e n yth e i rp e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. I. A s w e w r i t e onl yfort he part i es , w e w i l l for go a l engthyr eci t at i on of the fa ctual and l egal backgr ound t o t hi s cas e. T he G auw i s ar e ethni c C hi nes e and pr act i ci ng C hr i s t i ans w ho ar e nat i ves and ci t i zens of I ndones i a. I n A ugus t2001, the I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce i s s ued a N ot i ce t o A ppear , char gi ng them w i t h bei ng s ubj ect 1 t o r emoval underI N A § 237( a) ( 1) ( B ) forr emai ni ng i n t he U ni t ed St at es l ongerthan perm i t t ed. T he G auw i s conce ded r emovabi l i t y , butr eques t ed as y l um , w i t hhol di ng of rem o v al, an d p rotec ti o n u n d er the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re (“C A T ”). A tt he r emoval hear i ng befor e the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) , Susa nna t es t i fi ed aboutherexper i ence s i n I ndones i a. I n t he mi d- 1980s , acc or di ng t o hert es t i m ony , s he w as acc os t ed bya gr oup of peopl e w hi l e s he w as w al ki ng hom e fr om chur ch. T heyt hr ew3

herbi bl e ont o t he gr ound and t ol d herthat“M us l i m , ” notC hr i s t i ani t y , w as the “c orr ect w ay . ” Theyal s o r i di cul ed herforbei ng C hi nes e, and s t ol e herw al l et , m oney , and j ew el ry . A l t hough t her e w er e other s ar ound w hen thi s i nci dentoccurr ed, no one hel ped Susa nna. I n M ay1998, t her e w er e r i ot s nearSusa nna’ s hous e i n J akart a. She t es t i fi ed that p e o p le s ta y e d in th e irh o m e s , a n d s h o p s th a t w e re o w n e d b ye th n ic C h in e s e w e re b u rn e d . Susa nna and he rbr ot her s di d notl eave herhous e forabouta w eek. For tunat el y , they w er e noti nj ur ed. L at ert haty ear , Susa nna t es t i fi ed thats he w as r i di ng i n a t axi w hen s he w as s t opped bya gr oup of peopl e. T heyfor ced he routof the t axi and comm ent ed thats he w as C hi nes e. A l t hough t heydi d notharm herphy s i cal l y , theydi d t ake he rpur s e. T he p o lice d id n o t aid h e r in th e in v e stig a tio n o f e ith e r ro b b e ry , alth o u g h sh e w a s a b le to w a it ata pol i ce s t at i on aft ert he 1998 i nci dentunt i l i tw as s afe forhert o l eave . S u san n a a n d h er h u sb an d en tered the U n it ed S tat es o n A p ri l 5, 20 0 0 . T h eyw ere author i zed t o r emai n i n t he countr yunt i l A pr i l 4, 2001. Susa nna expl ai ned thats he a p p ro a c h e d a n in d iv id u a l to h e lp h e r f ile f o r a sy lu m in M a rc h 2 0 0 1 . D e sp ite h e r c laim s to have “ bother ed” thi s i ndi vi dual everyw eek, the appl i cat i on w as notfi l ed unt i l J une 4, 2001. U nfor tunat el y , t hi s w as aft ert he one- y earper i od had el aps ed. T he I J found thatSusa nna’ s appl i cat i on foras y l um w as unt i m el y , and thats he had fa il ed to es tablish c h an g ed o r ex tr ao rdin arycircu m stan ce s ex cu sing the d elay . In4

a d d iti o n , the IJ f

o u n d th a t, alth o u g h th e re m a ystill b e d isc rim in a tio n a g a in st e th n ic C hi nes e i n I ndones i a, condi t i ons w er e i m pr ovi ng and the I ndones i an governm entdi d not pr eventC hr i s t i ans fr om pr act i ci ng t hei rr el i gi on. T hus , Susa nna had notes t abl i s hed el i gi bi l i tyforw i t hhol di ng of r emoval orC A T pr ot ect i on. A s t o K as una, w hos e as y l um cl ai m w as der i vat i ve t o hi s w i fe’ s cl ai m , the I J not ed th a th e d i d n o th a v e a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o ra s y l u m, wi t h h o l d i n g o f r e mo v a l , o rCA T pr ot ect i on befor e the court . H ow ever , the I J w enton t o not e thatbeca us e K as una t es t i fi ed thathe w as neverharm ed i n I ndones i a, and w as notafr ai d t o r eturn, he had not es t abl i s hed anygr ounds forpr ot ect i on. In Ju ly2 0 0 5 , the B IA a d o p ted a n d a f f irm e d th e d e c isio n o f

th e IJ. T h e G a u w is f iled a m o tio n to re o p e n a n d re c o n sid e r, w h ich w a s a lso d e n ied in O c to b e r 2 0 0 5 . T h is pet i t i on fol l ow ed. II. W e e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w t h e BI A’ s 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 n d th e P e titio n e rs ’ c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 2 )( D ). T o the ext entt hatt he B I A adopt ed the fi ndi ngs and r eas oni ng of the I J , w e r evi ew the d e c is io n o f

th e IJ . Sukw anputr a v. G onz al es , 434 F. 3d 627, 631 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . I ns ofar a s th e B IA s e t f

o rt h its o w n o p in io n , h o w e v e r, w e re v ie w its re a s o n in g . I d. T he G auw i s fi r s tar gue thatt he one- y earbaron as y l um appl i cat i ons vi ol at es the C on st i tuti on and t reatyob l i gati on s of t he U nit ed S t at es. W e revi ew these cl ai m s de novo .5

I d. R ece nt l y , w e dec i ded thes e veryi s s ues i n Sukw anputr a v. G onz al es . T h e re , w e h e ld thatthe one- y earl i m i t at i ons per i od di d not“conf l i ct [] w i t h A r t i cl e 34 of 1951 U ni t ed N at i ons C onvent i on R el at i ng t o t he St atus of R efuge es ” bec aus e thatpr ovi s i on w as not s e lf -e x e c u tin g . I

d. at 63 1 -32 . W e a lso “ co n clud e[ d ] th at th e o n e-y ea r st atuto ry li m it ati o n s p eriod p rov ided in § 1 1 5 8 (a)(2) [ an d the ju d ici al rev iew b ar o f § 1 1 5 8 (a)(3)] do[] notvi ol at e the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e. ” I d. at632- 33. T he G auw i s nextchal l enge the I J ’ s det erm i nat i on thattheydi d notqual i fyforan excep t i on t o the one -y ear fi l i ng peri od for asy l um app l i cat i on s. O rdi nari l y , an ali en m ust f i l e a n a s y l u m a p p l i c a t i o n wi t h i n o n e y e a ro f a r r i v i n g i n th e Un i t e d S t a t e s . 8 U. S . C. § 1 1 5 8 (a )(2 )(B ). H o w e v e r, th e IJ m a yc o n sid e r a n a p p lica tio n f iled a f ter th e d e a d lin e if ther e ar e “c hanged c i r cumst ance s w hi ch mat er i al l yaff ectthe appl i cant ’ s el i gi bi l i t yfor as y l um orextr aor di naryci r cumst ance s r el at i ng t o t he del ayi n fi l i ng an appl i cat i on . . . . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 5 8 (a)(2)(D ). T he G auw i s ar gue thatt he pr operl egal s t andar d fordet erm i ni ng w hetherornotan e x c e p tio n to th e f

ilin g d e a d lin e a p p lie s is a “ re a s o n a b le u n d e r t h e c ir c u m s ta n c e s ” te s t. H ow ever , beca us e the Pet i t i oner s di d notpr es entthi s ar gum entt o t he B I A , w e do not h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w it h e re . See 8 U . S. C . § 1252( d) ( 1) . R ather , the ar gum ent m ade t o the I J – as w el l as t he s ubs t ance of the ar gum entm ade t o t hi s C our t– i s thatt he P e titio n e rs s h o u ld b e a c c o rd e d th e “ b e n e f it o f th e d o u b t” in la te -f

ilin g s itu a tio n s . H ow ever , w e r ej ect ed thi s s t andar d i n Su kw an pu tra , s ay i ng thatthe ar gum entw as6

“w hol l yw i t houtm er i t . ” 434 F. 3d at634. I n addi t i on, “the abs ence of i nt ent i onal conduct on t he partof the as y l um appl i canti n cr eat i ng the ci r cumst ance s w hi ch ca us ed the del ay is m e re lyo n e e lem e n t th a t th e a sy lu m a p p lica n t m u st p ro v e to e x c u se a f a ilu re to f

ile w i thi n the one- y eardeadl i ne. ” I d. at635 n. 5 ( ci t i ng 8 C . F. R . § 208. 4( a) ( 5) ) . I ti s not , as th e P e tit io n e rs a rg u e , the c o m p lete tes t to e x c u se late f ili n g . T h u s, w e f

in d n o e rro r w ith th e leg a l sta n d a rd a p p lied b yth e IJ in d e ter m in in g th a t th e P e tit io n e rs w e re n o t en tit led to an ex cepti on t o the one -y ear fi l i ng peri od for asy l um app l i cat i on s. Fi nal l y , t he G auw i s ar gue thatthe I J err ed i n fi ndi ng thatno “patt ern orpr act i ce” of per s ecut i on agai ns tC hi nes e C hr i s t i ans exi s t s i n I ndones i a. B eca us e thei ras y l um pet i t i on w as unt i m el yand theyhave notas s ert ed anycol or abl e ar gum entconce r ni ng t or tur e, the onl ycl ai m underw hi ch thi s ar gum entw oul d be r el evanti s thei rr eques tfor w ith h o lding o f re m o v al un d er IN A § 2 4 1 (b)(3 ). T o stat e su ch a c lai m , the P eti ti o n ers m us tdemonstr at e a “ cl earpr obabi l i t y ” thatthei rl i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened u p o n re tu rn to In d o n e s ia o n a c c o u n t o f a p ro te c te d g ro u n d . See 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 3 1 (b)(3 ); IN S v . S tev ic , 467 U . S. 407, 429 ( 1984) . T heym ayes t abl i s h t hi s pr obabi l i t y , i n par t , by s how i ng that“ther e i s a patt ern orpr act i ce i n [thei r ] countr yof nat i onal i t y. . . of per s ecut i on of a gr oup of per s ons s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed t o t he appl i cant [s ] on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on . . . . ” L ie v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 9 6 F . 3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 6 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( q u o t i n g 8 C. F . R. § 2 08 . 13 (b) (2) (i i i )( A )) (i nternal quotat i on m arks om i t t ed). T his patt ern or pract i ce m ustT he Pet i t i oner s ar gue thatt hi s cl ai m s houl d be ana l y zed de novo b ec au se th e IJ 2 em p loy ed the in co rrect st an d ard b yfo cu sing ex clus ivelyo n the In d o n esian g o v ern m en t’ s behavi orw i t h r es pectt o C hi nes e C hr i s t i ans , r atherthan on pr i vat e ac t or s . H ow ever , t he r ecor d r evea l s t hatt he I J cons i der ed a pa t t ern orpr act i ce c l ai m and di d notl i m i ther cons i der at i on t o t he governm ent ’ s act i ons , butr atherfound thatthe governm ent ’ s act i ons and pol i ci es underm i ned the Pet i t i oner s ’ cl ai m r egar di ng the pervas i venes s of the per s ecut i on fac ed byC hi nes e C hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a. 7 be “s y s t emi c, pervas i ve, oror gani zed, ” and the “vi ol ence orot herharm perpetr at ed by civili an s ag ains t th e p eti ti o n er’s g rou p d o es n o t con sti tute p erse cu ti o n u n less su ch ac ts are ‘c o m m itt e d b yth e g o v e rn m e n t o r f o rc e s th e g o v e rn m e n t is e ith e r “ u n a b le o r u n w ill in g ” to contr ol . ’ ” I

d. at537 ( quot i ng A b d u lra h m a n v . A sh c ro ft , 3 3 0 F . 3 d 5 8 7 , 5 9 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 )). H e re , the IJ f

o u n d th a t, alth o u g h th e re m a ystill b e d isc rim in a tio n a g a in st e th n ic C hi nes e and Chri s t i ans i n I ndones i a, thi s di s cr i m i nat i on does notr i s e t o t he l evel of a patt ern orpr act i ce of

per s ecut i on. W e bel i eve thatthi s fi ndi ng i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . S e e A b d ill e v . A sh c ro ft , 242 F. 3d 477, 483 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . W hi l e the 2 Pet i t i oner s poi ntt o s om e evi dence of di s cr i m i nat i on, ther e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence i n t he re c o rd s u c h th a t it d o e s n o t c o m p e l a c o n c lu s io n c o n tr a ry to th e o n e re a c h e d b yth e IJ . I d. a t 4 8 3 -8 4 (e m p h a siz in g th a t a “ f in d in g m u st b e u p h e ld u n les s th e e v id e n c e n o t o n ly s uppor t s a contr aryconcl us i on, butcompel s i t ”) . T he I ndones i an governm entdoes not p re v e n t th e p ra c tice o f

C h ristia n ity , an d C h in e se lan g u a g e b o o k s a n d m u sic a re w id e ly a v a i l a b l e . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e De p a r t me n to f S t a t e Re p o r t s f

o r2 0 0 2 , th o u g h n o t i n g s o me i ns t ance s of di s cr i m i nat i on and har as s m ent , emphasi ze thatthe I ndones i an governm entM anyof thes e extr eme exampl es of r el i gi ous t ens i on occurr ed out s i de of Sum atr a, 3 w her e the Pet i t i oner s l i ve. W e a lso n o te th a t, alth o u g h th e P e tit io n e rs d id n o t m a k e a n ysp e c if ic a rg u m e n ts 4 on t hes e poi nt s , w e fi nd t hatt he B I A di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on fordeny i ng thei rm ot i on to re o p e n a n d re c o n s id e r. S e e Eze a g w u n a v . A sh c ro ft , 3 2 5 F .3 d 3 9 6 , 4 0 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). A m ot i on t o r econs i derr equi r es an appl i cantt o “s peci fy [] the err or s of fa ctorl aw i n the p ri o r B o a rd d e c is io n a n d s h a ll b e s u p p o rt e d b yp e rt in e n t a u th o ri ty.” 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (b ). A m ot i on t o r eopen a l l ow s an appl i cantt o pr es entnew fac t s w her e “the evi dence s ought t o be off er ed i s m at er i al and w as notavai l abl e and c oul d nothave be en di s cover ed or pr es ent ed att he form erhear i ng. ” 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c) . T he err or s thatw oul d al l ow t he P eti ti o n ers to a v ail them selv es o f § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (b) a re d iscu ssed ab o v e, an d the P eti ti o n ers h av e p rese n ted n o fa cts th at w o u ld q u ali fythem fo r reli ef u n d er § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (c). 8 “o ff ici all yp rom o tes racial an d ethn ic t o leran ce . ” T h eyd esc ri b e the g o v ern m en t’ s t ol er ance of i l l egal act i ons agai ns tr el i gi ous gr oups bypr i vat e i ndi vi dual s as “o cc asio n al[],” rathe r th an as sy stem ic, p erv asiv e, or o rga n ized . Ind ee d , the re co rd cont ai ns exampl es of w hen the I ndones i an governm enthas depl oy ed tr oops t o cr ack dow n on extr emi s t s , and the D epart m entof St at e’ s H um an R i ght s R epor tfor2002 not es 3 thatat t acks ai m ed atC hi nes e C hr i s t i ans have de cr eas ed overpas ty ear s . C onfi r m i ng thes e r eport s , t he Pet i t i oner s ’ fami l i es have l i ved i n I ndones i a w i t houti nci dentdur i ng thei rt i m e i n t he U ni t ed St at es , and K as una t es t i fi ed bef or e the I J thathe di d notfea rfor hi s s afe tyi n r etur ni ng t o I ndones i a. I n s um , w hi l e ther e i s tr oubl i ng evi dence of l i nger i ng re lig io u s in to ler a n c e in In d o n e sia , w e a re n o t co m p e lled to c o n c lu d e th a t th e IJ e rre d in determ i ning t hat there w as not a pat t ern or pract i ce of persecut i on againstet hn i c C hinese C hr i s t i ans t her e. III . F o rt h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yth e P e t i t i o n e r s ’ a p p l i c a t i o n s f o rr e v i e w. 4