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 6-28-2006 

# B udiyono 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 . 05-3737

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_2006

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 2006 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
" B ud iyono v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 826. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/826

### NO T P RE CE DENT I AL UN I TE D S TA TE S C OU RT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT No. 05- 3737 F NU B UDI YONO, Pet i t i oner v. AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF 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 T h e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M iriam K . M ill s

( N o. A 96- 203- 450) Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 7, 2006 B efor e: A M B R O , FU E N T E S and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed J une 28, 2006 )

OP I NI ON A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udgeT he I J had j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 8 C . F. R . § 208. 2. T he B I A had j ur i s di ct i on 1 under8 C . F. R . § 1003. 1( b) . W e exe r ci s e appe l l at e j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s pet i t i on for re v ie w u n d e r § 2 4 2 (b ) o f th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A c t ( “ IN A ” ), 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b). 

### 2 Fnu B udi y ono pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A p p e a ls (B IA ) a f

f ir m in g th e d e n ia l o f

h is c la im s f

o r a s y lu m a n d w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l. Fort he r eas ons s etfor t h bel ow , w e w i l l aff i r m t he dec i s i on of the B I A and denyt he p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. 1 I. B e c a u se w e w rite p rin c ip a llyf o r th e p a rties , w e n o te o n lyth o se f a c ts n e c e ss a ryto ouranal y s i s . B udi y ono i s an ethni cal l yC hi nes e C hr i s t i an ci t i zen of I ndones i a w ho ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es as a non- i m m i gr antvi s i t or , over s t ay ed hi s vi s a, and w as char ged w i t h r emoval forr emai ni ng i n t he U ni t ed St at es w i t houtauthor i zat i on i n vi ol at i on of 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B) . Bu d i y o n o c o n c e d e d h e wa s r e mo v a b l e a n d a p p l i e d f o ra s y l u m, w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , r el i ef unde rt he U ni t ed N at i ons C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e and O th e r F o rm s o f

C ru e l, In h u m a n , o r D e g ra d in g T re a tm e n t o r P u n ish m e n t (“ C A T ” ), an d , in t he al t er at i ve, vol unt arydepartur e. H e cl ai m ed he w as per s ecut ed i n I ndones i a on ac co u n t of

h is eth n ici tyan d reli g ion , an d that h e h as a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture p e rs e c u tio n o n th e s a m e g ro u n d s s h o u ld h e re tu rn . T he i m m i gr at i on j udge ( I J ) found thatB udi y ono w as notel i gi bl e foras y l um b e c a u s e h is a p p lic a tio n w a s n o t f ile d w ith in o n e y e a r o f

h is a rr iv a l in th e U n ite d S ta te s . 

### 8

### As i t doe s not a ppe ar that Budi yono r a i s e d hi s c l a i m for CAT r e l i e f be for e the 2 

### B IA , w e d o n o t ad dress it h ere. S ee A b d u lra h m a n v. A sh cro

ft , 330 F. 3d 587, 594- 95 ( 3d Cir. 20 03 ) ( “[A] n ali en is re qu ir ed to ra is e andexhaust his or her r em edie s a s t o eac h cl ai m or groundfo r r el ie f if h e or s he is to pres er ve the right of

ju dici alre view of

that claim .”). Inany

ev ent, B u d iyo n o h as n o t raiseda C A T claim inh is b rief

to o ur C o urt, an dth eref

o re, ev enif

h e h adraisedit b ef

o re th e B IA , th at claim

w o u ldb e w aiv ed . Li e v. A sh c ro ft , 396 F. 3d 530, 532 n. 1 ( 3d C i r . 2005) 

### . 3 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (a)(2 )(B ). M o reo v er, B udi y ono 

### had n ot dem on strate d either c hang ed circ um st ance s a ff

ec ting his e li gibili ty

or extraordinar

y circ um st ance s r el ating to the delay that c oul d a l l ow for

the c ons i de r at i on of an othe rwi s e unti m e l y a ppl i c ati on . 

### 8 U .S .C . § 11 58 ( a) ( 2) ( D) . T he I J fur t herfound that– al t hough B udi y ono’ s t es t i m onyw as cr edi bl e – t he harm he fe ar ed w as nei t hers ever e norl i kel yenough t o s at i s fyt he s t andar ds for w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l a n d re lie f

u n d e r t h e C A T . See 

### 8 U . S. C. § 1 23 1(b) ( 3) ( A) (w ith h o lding o f re m o v al); 

### IN S v. Stevic , 467 U. S. 407, 412 ( 1984) ( wi thhol di ng ap p ro p riate o n ly

wh enth ere is a “clear p ro b ab ility” th at th e alien ’s lif e o r f reed o m w o u ld be thre at ened up onre m ov al ); s e eal s o 8 C. F. R. §§ 208. 16 and 208. 18 ( r egul at i ons go verni ng C A T cl ai m s) 

### ; A b d u lra h m a n v. A sh cro

ft , 330 F. 3d 587, 591 n. 2 ( 3d Ci r . 2003) ( for aCAT c l a i m , a l i e n m

us t s how i t i s m or e l i ke l y

than not that s /he wi l lbe t ort

ur e d by the gov er nm ent or with its ac qu ie sc ence ) . T he I J gr ant ed B udi y ono vol unt arydepartur e. B udi y ono appea l ed the I J ’ s deci s i on as t o hi s as y l um and w i t hhol di ng of r emoval claim s to the B IA . T h e B IA af firm ed , co n clud ing that there w as n o ev iden ce to su p p o rt 2 hi s cont ent i on t hatcountr ycondi t i ons had cha nged s uch thathi s unt i m el yas y l um pet i t i on s houl d be cons i der ed, and the evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o pr ove el i gi bi l i t yfor

### 4

w i t hhol di ng. T he B I A al s o aff i r m ed the I J ’ s gr antof vol unt arydepartur e. B udi y ono pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the B I A ’ s deci s i on. II. 8 U . S. C . § 1158( a) ( 3) depr i ves us of j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew t he I J ’ s det erm i nat i on t hatB udi y ono’ s as y l um pet i t i on w as notfi l ed w i t hi n t he one y earl i m i t at i ons per i od, and th a t th e p e ri o d w a s n o t to lle d b ye x tr a o rd in a ry c ir c u m s ta n c e s . 

### 8 U. S. C. § 1158( a) ( 3) ; T a rr a w a lly v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 3 8 F .3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). W e have j ur i s di ct i on, how ever , t o r evi ew t he I J ’ s deni al of w i t hhol di ng of r emoval . W her e, as her e, t he B I A adopt s t he fi ndi ngs of the I J and di s cus s es s om e of the b a s e s o f th e IJ ’s d e c is io n , w e re v ie w th e d e c is io n s o f b o th th e IJ a n d th e B IA . C hen v. A sh c ro ft , 376 F. 3d 215, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . W e r evi ew t he det erm i nat i on of w hetheran al i en w as s ubj ectt o per s ecut i on orhas a w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on undert he su b sta n tial e v id e n c e sta n d a rd , “u n d e r w h ich w e m a yre v e rse o n lyif a re a so n a b le adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o t he contr ary . ” Toure v. A t tn’ y G en. , 443 F .3 d 3 1 0 , 3 1 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s a n d c itatio n s o m itt e d ); s ee al s o 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )( 4 )( B ). W e conc l ude thats ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s t he I J ’ s and the B I A ’ s fi ndi ngs t hat t he i nci dent s des cr i bed and the harm fea r ed byB udi y ono do notr i s e t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on. H e des cr i bed the gene r al l yhos t i l e – and s om et i m es vi ol ent– condi t i ons e x p e r i e n c e d b ye t h n i c a l l yCh i n e s e a n d Ch r i s t i a n I n d o n e s i a n s , a n d t e s t i f i e d t o h i s o wn

### We n o te th at o ur C o urt h as recently m ad e similar criticism s o f M s. C h enin 3 

### an o th er unp ub lish edo p in io nan dref erredh er to th e T h irdC ircu it C o urt o f Ap p eals’ D iscip lin ary

C o mmittee p ursu ant to F ed eral Ru le o f Ap p ellate P ro cedure 4 6 (c). Agusalim v. Go nzales , 200 5 WL 4 03 60 70 , *2 n .2 (3d C ir ., May 24 , 200 5). 5 d ire c t ex p e rie n c e s o f

b e in g h a ra ss e d a n d d isc rim in a ted a g a in st o n a c c o u n t o f h is e th n icity and r el i gi on. H ow ever , “the conc eptof per s ecut i on does notencompas s al l t r eatm entt hat ours oci etyr egar ds as unfai r , unj us toreven unl aw ful oruncons t i tut i onal . ” Fa t i n v . I NS , 12 F. 3d 1233, 1240 ( 3d C i r . 1993) . A ccor di ngl y , w e have defi ned “pe r s ecut i on as i ncl udi ng t hr eat s t o l i fe, confi nement , t or tur e, and ec onom i c r es t r i ct i ons s o s ever e that t heycons t i tut e a r eal t hr eatt o l i fe orfr eedom. ” L u kw a g o v . A sh c ro ft , 329 F. 3d 157, 168 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( ci t at i on and i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) . M or eover , “per s ecut i on” r equi r es ei t hergovernm enti nvol vementort he i nvol vementof i ndi vi dual s t he governm ent i s “unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o contr ol . ” G a o v . A sh c ro ft , 2 9 9 F .3 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). H er e, B udi y ono di d notdemonstr at e ei t her“a r eal t hr eatt o l i fe orfr eedom” ort hatt he In d o n e sia n g o v e rn m e n t is “ u n a b le o r u n w ill in g to c o n tro l” th e in d iv id u a ls w h o a lleg e d ly per s ecut ed hi m . I n t hi s l i ght , w e hol d t hatt her e w as s ubs t ant i al evi dence t o s uppor tt he d e n i a l o f Bu d i y o n o ’ s wi t h h o l d i n g c l a i m. III . W e t ake a m om entt o comm enton t he w hol l yi nadequa t e br i ef pr epar ed by B udi y ono’ s at t or ney , E l eanorC hen. A s s t at ed above , B udi y ono’ s as y l um cl ai m w as 3 deni ed as unt i m el y , and forfai l i ng t o ci t e 

### circum stan ces th at co u ldex cu se th e d elay .

### 6

Beca use we do n ot have juri sdic ti onto re view the tim el ines s det er mination, Bu diyon o’s withho lding cla im

repres ente d h is on ly

viablecl ai m

fo r r el ie f. Yet in h er

brie f M s. Ch en arg u e s o n l y B ud i y on o’s as yl um cl ai m and fa i l s compl et el yt o m ake a n ar gum entfor w i t hhol di ng of r emoval . M or eover , even w i t hi n herar gum enton t he doomed as y l um cl ai m M s . C hen ar gues t he m e rits of the cl ai m , and i gn ores com plet el yt he ti m el i ness issue . In o ther w o rds, sh e n eg lects th e o n lyissue w e w o u ld b e a b le t o rev iew if w e w ere a b le to e x e rc is e ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h e c la im . T he fa t al m i s m at ch betw een Budi y ono’ s cl ai m s and M s . C hen’ s ar gum entm aybe due i n par tt o herappar entdeci s i on t o cutand pas t e heras y l um ar gum entfr om pr evi ous br i efs . W e have compar ed herbr i ef i n t hi s cas e t o a br i ef s ubm i t t ed i n a anotherpet i t i on forr evi ew ( s eeki ng r el i ef on di ffe r entgr ounds and i n r egar d t o a di ffe r entcountr y ) , and c a n n o t h e lp b u t n o tic e th a t w h o le s e c tio n s a re id e n tic a l w o rd f o r w o rd . O ne of the i dent i cal s ent ence s t hatM s . C hen w oul d have be en advi s ed t o cutout of B udi y ono’ s br i ef w as t he as s er t i on t hat“[t ] he I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s pur e s us pi ci on t hat th e re a re c o n tra d ictio n s in th e tes tim o n yo f P e tit io n e r, w ith o u t m o re , is n o t an a d e q u a te b a sis f o r a d isc re tio n a ryd e n ial o f a sy lu m w h o w ill a lm o st c e rta in lyf a c e p e rse c u tio n in h is hom e countr y . ” A s w e al r eadyobs erved, t he cl ai m M s . C hen s houl d have be en as s er t i ng w a s f o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l, bu t m o re im p o rta n tly , the IJ in th is c a se f o u n d e x p licitly t hatB udi y ono w as cr edi bl e as t o hi s cl ai m s of per s ecut i on. T her e w as no “s us pi ci on” and t her e w er e no al l eged “ contr adi ct i ons . ”

### 7

A not herboi l erpl at e s ent ence , w hi ch w as equal l yi nappr opr i at e i n t he ea r l i erbr i ef, i s t he as s er t i on t hat“[i ] ti s s t i pul at ed . . . [B udi y ono] has a w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on i n I ndones i a. ” A s t i pul at i on i s a “vol unt aryagr eementbetw een oppos i ng par t i es conce r ni ng s om e r el evantpoi nt . ” B l acks ’s Law D i ct i onar y 1 4 2 7 (7 th e d . 1 9 9 9 ). D esp it e M s. C h en ’s co n fid en t dec larati o n that the c en tr al qu esti o n o n ap p ea l t o o u r C o u rt has been r es ol ved byt he part i es , t he G overnm enthas s ubm i t t ed a br i ef de fendi ng t he B I A ’ s deni al of r el i ef, t hus s ugges t i ng t hati thas nots t i pul at ed t o t he exi s t ence of per s ecut i on. I n addi t i on, w e obs erve thati n t he fi ve page s devot ed t o B udi y ono’ s appea l , C hen i ncl udes onl yt w o s ent ence s t hatar e s peci fi c t o hi m . Fi r s t , s he begi ns bys ay i ng “[p] et i t i oneri s a 37 y earol d s i ngl e mal e. ” She goes on t o s t at e that“[p] et i t i onerhas su f f e re d se v e re tra u m a rig h t af ter th e M a y1 9 9 8 c iv il riots in Ja k a rta in w h ich e th n ic C h ines e w ere targe ted f o r bru tal ityb yn ati v e In d o n esian s. ” In co n tr ast, the G o v ern m en t’ s br i ef i ncl udes s i x pages di s cus s i ng B udi y ono’ s s peci fi c expe r i ence s of har as s m entand di s cr i m i nat i on. O f cour s e, t he G overnm ent ’ s poi nti s t hatt hes e “pr evi ous har ds hi ps ” and

“ s o c i e t a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ” d o n o ta m o u n tt o p e r s e c u t i o n , a n d w e a g r e e . G e n e r a l l y, how ever , an “a ppl i cantm us tdo m or e than r el yon a gene r al t hr eatof dange rar i s i ng fr om a s t at e of c i vi l s t r i fe; s om e s peci fi c s how i ng i s r equi r ed, ” A l

- Far a v. G onz al es , 404 F. 3d 733, 742 ( 3d C i r . 2005) , and thus an att or neyi s w el l - advi s ed t o ci t e t o s peci fi c exa m pl es o f p e rs e c u tio n in o rd e r t o s u p p o rt a c la im f o r r e lie f f ro m re m o v a l.

### 8

In th is c o n tex t, M s. C h e n ’s p e rf o rm a n c e o n a p p e a l d id n o t h a v e a m e a su ra b le eff ecton B udi y ono’ s cl ai m forr el i ef, as w e do nothave j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew hi s as y l um cl ai m and the r ecor d i s cl eart hatt her e ar e no fa ct s s uffi ci entt o m eett he more s t r i ngent s ta n d a rd f

o r w ith h o ld in g . 

### Luk

wago v . I NS, 329 F. 3d 157, 182 ( 3d Ci r . 2003) ( “ The s t andar d for

wi thhol di ng of r e m ova li s hi ghe r than, a lbe i t

s i mi l ar t o, the s t andar d for asylum .”). * * * * * Fo r the re as on s s tate d h er ein, we deny Bu diyon o’s petition f

or re view . W e do not d i s tu rb t h e g r a n to f

v o l u n t a r yd e p a r tu r e a s p r o v i d e d i n t h e o r d e ro f t h e BI A.