2008 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 3-26-2008 

# T jio 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 . 06-3860

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 nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

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 nova 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 2008 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 nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " T jio v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1387. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1387NOT 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- 3860 /07- 1785

A N IK T JIO ; TJ AN DR A H END RO SOESAN TO P eti ti o n ers v. AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

O n P eti ti o n fo r R ev iew o f a n O rde r o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN os . A 79- 347- 324 and A 79- 347- 325)

Subm i t t ed pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February8, 2008 B e f o re : M c K E E , A M B R O , and A L D ISE R T , C i rcui tJudg es ( Fi l ed: M ar ch 26, 2008)Petitioner Soesanto initially claimed e ligibility

for relief a s a derivative of Tjio’s 1 application for

asylum and withholding of removal. Hesubsequently filed his own application and theIJ hel d jo int

he aring s o n th e ir

a pp lic atio ns . Petitioners argue that the B oard erre d in failingto consider a Motion to Hold Decision 2 in Abeyance“that has not be en included in the A dministrative Rec ord.” Petitioners’ B r. at 10. Our re view i s li mit e d to thea dminis trativ ere c ord, and wemay no t c on sid e r t

heB oa rd ’s failureto rule on a motion that is not included in that rec ord. Dia v . A sh c ro ft , 353 F.3d 249 ( 3d Cir. 2003) ( en banc ). ___________________ OP I NI ON

____________________ M cK E E , C i r cui tJ udge: T j andr a Soes ant o and A ni k T j i o ( hus band and w i fe) pet i t i on forr evi ew of a deci s i on of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s . Fort he r eas ons t hatfol l ow , w e w i l l deny 1 t he pet i t i on. 2 I . I n a s mu c h a s we wr i t e p r i ma r i l yf o rt h e p a r t i e s wh o a r e f a mi l i a rwi t h t h i s c a s e , we need nots etfor t h t he fa ctual orpr ocedur al hi s t or yexce pti ns ofaras m aybe hel pful t o our br i ef di s cus s i on. O n J ul y24, 2006, t he B I A di s m i s s ed Pet i t i oner s ’ appea l of the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s or derdeny i ng t hei rappl i cat i ons foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval and pr ot ect i on undert he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( t he “CA T ”) . O n February13, 2007, t he B I A i s s ued a s econd de ci s i on i n w hi ch i tvaca t ed the I J ’ s fi ndi ng t hatPet i t i oner s ’ as y l um appl i cat i on w as fr i vol ous , butr eaf fi r m ed the I J ’ s deni al of r el i ef. W e now hol d t hat s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s t he B I A ’ s deci s i on.3 II. W e h a v e ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a ). W e a p p lya n “ e x tre m e ly d e f e re n tia l” s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s ta n d a rd to th e B IA ’s f in d in g s o f

f a c t. C h e n v . A sh c ro

ft , 376 F. 3d 215, 223 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l r ever s e the B I A ’ s det erm i nat i ons on i s s ues l i ke pas tper s ecut i on, t he l i kel i hood of futur e per s ecut i on, and the l i kel i hood of t or tur e onl yi f “the evi dence notonl ys uppor t s a contr aryconcl us i on, butcompel s i t . ” A b d ill e v . A sh c ro

ft , 2 4 2 F .3 d 4 7 7 , 4 8 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). W e uphol d an I J ' s adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i ons “i f theyar e s uppor t ed by r eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr obat i ve evi dence on t he r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e. ” C hen v. G onz al es , 43 4 F . 3d 21 2, 21 6 (3d C i r. 20 05 ). W here an IJ m akes an adv ers e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng, he/ s he musts uppl ys peci fi c, cogentr eas ons forconcl udi ng t hatt he p e titio n e r i s n o t c re d ib le . G abuni ya v. A t t or ney G ener al , 4 6 3 F . 3 d 3 1 6 , 3 2 1 (3d C ir . 2006) . I n addi t i on, t he I J ' s concl us i ons m us tbe bas ed on the r ecor d, noton “conj ectur e or s p e c u la tio n .” D ia v . A sh c ro ft , 3 5 3 F . 3 d 2 2 8 , 2 4 9 -25 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ).

III . Pet i t i oner s cl ai m t hatt heyw i l l be harm ed and pe r s ecut ed i n I ndones i a on ac count o f th e ir re lig io n a n d e th n icity . T h e yo f f e re d e v id e n c e re latin g to a se x u a l as sa u lt o n T jio in a sh o p p in g m a ll i n In d o n e sia . T h e ya lso tes tifie d to su b se q u e n t th re a ts a n d a ttem p ts to e x to rt m o n e yf

ro m P e titio n e rs b ya s e c u ri ty g u a rd a n d a p o lic e o f f ic e r. T h e IJ d ism iss e d P e tit io n e rs’ a p p lica tio n f o r a sy lu m b e c a u se it w a s n o t f iled w ith inIn the meantime, Petitioners sought reviewof the B IA’s first order. Their Petitions have 3 been c onsolidated. Relying in pa

rt on ca ses in which wehave c riticized Judg e F erlise’ s conduct. See Cham 4 v. Attorney General , 4 45 F .3 d 6 83 (3 d Cir. 20 06 ); Shah v. Attorney General , 446 F.3d 429 ( 3d Cir . 2 00 6) ; Sukwanputra v. Gonzales , 4 34 F .3 d 6 27 (3 d Cir. 20 06 ); Fiadjoe v. Attorney General , 411 F.3d 135 ( 3d Cir. 2005), Petitioners argued to the B IA that Immigration Judg e F erlise had acte d improperly . 4 one y earof thei rent er i ng t he U ni t ed St at es and nei t herPet i t i onercoul d es t abl i s h change d o r e x tr a o rd in a ry c ir c u m s ta n c e s . See 8 U . S. C . § 1158( a) ( 2) . T he I J al s o deni ed w i t hhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef unde rt he C A T . I n doi ng s o, he not ed s ever al i ncons i s t enci es and contr adi ct i ons betw een Tj i o’ s w r i t t en appl i cat i ons , heraff i davi t , and her heari ng t est i m on y , as w el l as ot her percei ved problem s w i t h b oth Peti t i on ers ’ t es t i m ony . T he I J found thatbot h T j i o and Soes ant o w er e “t ot al l yi ncr edi bl e” a nd rul ed th a t th e yh a d su b m itt e d a f riv o lo u s a p p lica tio n . A ltern a tiv e ly , the IJ h e ld th a t ev e n if th e ir t es t i m onyw as bel i eved, t heyhad notes t abl i s hed pas tper s ecut i on ora “c l earpr obabi l i t yof [ f u tu re ] p e rse c u tio n .” F in a lly , the IJ h e ld th a t th e c o u n tryre p o rts a n d o th e r m a ter ials subm i t t ed b yP et i t i on ers did not es t abli sh a patt ern or pract i ce of persecut i on of C hinese C hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a. T he B I A i ni t i al l yuphel d al l of the I J ’ s fi ndi ngs i n a tw o- par agr aph percur i am or derdat ed J ul y24, 2005. O n February13, 2007, t he B I A i s s ued a s econd opi ni on and o rde r ad d ressing P eti ti o n ers’ m o ti o n to reo p en an d rec o n side r. T h ere in, th e B IA 3 addr es s ed thei rchal l enge t o t he adve r s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng and Pet i t i oner s ’ ar gum entt hat their du e p roc ess righ ts ha d b ee n v iolated b ythe IJ’s c o n d u ct of their he aring s. T h e B IA 45

ruled that Ju d g e F erli se h ad n o t acted im p rop erly . S p ec ifi ca ll ythe B IA n o ted th at th e IJ’s

“ d e c isio n f

o c u se d o n in c o n sis ten c ies a n d w a s o f ten re p e tit iv e in d e sc rib in g th e c re d ib ili ty p ro b lem s h e sa w ; h o w e v e r, th is d o e s n o t rise to a v io latio n o f d u e p ro c e ss n o r d o e s it es t abl i s h cl earerr or . ” Supp. A pp. at3. T he B I A al s o found thateven though t he I J t ook

“ a d i r e c tr o l e i n q u e s t i o n i n g , ” t h e r e wa s n o e v i d e n c e o f “ b a d g e r i n g o rb u l l y i n g ” s u c h a s we h a v e p re v io u s ly n o te d . Id . T he B I A acknow l edged thatJ udge Fer l i s e had be en r epr i m anded i n s ever al cas es , butobs erved that“one c annots i m pl yas s um e thathe l acke d decorum i n everycas e bef or e hi m . ” I

d. T he B I A al s o found thatt he I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on w as notbas ed on s pecul at i on orconj ectur e, butr ather“i nvol ved conf l i ct i ng s t at ement s i n [Tj i o] ’ s w r i t t en s t at ement s and hert es t i m onyaboutt he s peci fi cs s ur r oundi ng [her ] cl ai m of per s ecut i on. ” I d. T he B I A agr eed w i t h t he I J ’ s fi ndi ng t hatPet i t i oner s ’ as y l um cl ai m w as t i m ebarr ed, and the B oar d r eaf fi r m ed the I J ’ s deni al of w i t hhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef unde r t he C A T . T he B I A expl ai ned that , r egar dl es s of Pet i t i oner s ’ cr edi bi l i t y , t he i nci dent s t hey d esc ri b ed “d o n o t est ab li sh p ast p erse cu ti o n an d are insu ff ici en t t o estab li sh that itis m o re l i kel yt han nott he r es pondent s w i l l be per s ecut ed ort or tur ed i f r etur ned t o I ndones i a. ” I d. at4. ( ci t i ng Fa t i n v . I

NS , 1 2 F . 3 d 1 2 3 3 , 1 2 4 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 )). T h e B IA d id, ho w ev er, vacate the IJ’ s fi nd i ng t hat Pet i t i on ers ’ as y l um app l i cat i on w as fr i vo l ou s. I V .6

A s a thr es hol d m at t er , w e do nothave s t atut or yauthor i t yt o r evi ew t he fi ndi ngs t hat th e a s y lu m a p p lic a tio n is tim e -b a rr e d . 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (a )( 3 ). See al s o B onhom etr e v. G onz al es , 414 F. 3d 442 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( al i ens cannots eek r evi ew of a c l ai m notpr es ent ed to the B o ard ). T he B I A ’ s deni al of Pet i t i oner s ’ appl i cat i on forw i t hhol di ng i s s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence . Pet i t i oner s beart he bur den of pr ovi ng t hatt heyw i l l m or e l i kel yt han n o t f a c e p e rs e c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f a p ro te c te d g ro u n d . S e e IN S v . S tev ic , 467 U . S. 407, 429- 30 ( 1984) . A s not ed byt he B I A , per s ecut i on “connot es extr eme behavi or ” s uch as “thr 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 thatt hey cons t i tut e a thr eatt o l i fe orfr eedom. ” Supp. A pp. at4 ( quot i ng Fa t i n v . I NS , 12 F. 3d 1 2 3 3 , 1 2 4 0 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 3 )) . T he B I A di d notcl ear l yerri n fi ndi ng t hatt he i nci dent s des cr i bed byT j i o and S o esa n to d o n o t est ab li sh p ast p erse cu ti o n an d are insu ff ici en t t o estab li sh that itis m o re lik e ly th a n n o t th a t th e re s p o n d e n ts w ill b e p e rs e c u te d o r t o rt u re d if re tu rn e d to In d o n e s ia . M o reo v er, ou r i n d ep en d en t r ev iew o f th eir du e p roc ess c lai m co n firm s the B IA ’s c o n c l u s i o n t h a tt h e I J ’ s b e h a v i o rf e l l s h o r to f

“ b a d g e r i n g a n d b u l l y i n g ” t h e P e t i t i o n e r s . We a g re e , h o w e v e r, t h a t h is c o n d u c t o f th e h e a ri n g w a s c e rt a in ly n o t a m o d e l o f d e c o ru m . N evert hel es s , t he B I A corr ect l yconcl uded that“mostof the di s cr epanc i es on w hi ch the Im m i grat i on Judg e rel i ed to fi nd t he respon den t s i ncredi ble w ere r evealed du ri ng cross -The tra nscript of dire ct examination reveals that a majority of the que stions came from 5 the IJrather than Petitioners’ attorney . At times the transcript reads morelike an interrog ation tha n a he aring . N on e the le ss, theB IA’ s d e c isi on to u ph old thea dv e rs ec re dib ili ty

findingis supported by

substantial evidencein this i nstance . Moreover, as wehave e xplained, the record w o u l d n o ts u p p o rtr e l i e f

e v e ni f w ea c c ep tP e t i t i o n e r s ’ t e s t i m o ny.

7 e x a m in a tio n w h e n th e Im m ig ra tio n J u d g e w a s le s s in te rr u p tiv e .” 5 E ven as s um i ng t hatPet i t i oner s ’ t es t i m onyi s cr edi bl e, t her e i s s t i l l s ubs t ant i al evi dence t o s uppor tt he B I A ’ s aff i r m ance of the I J ’ s hol di ng t hatt heydi d notes t abl i s h a p a tte rn o r p ra c tic e o f

p e rs e c u tio n . S e e a lso L ie v . A sh c ro ft , 3 9 6 F . 3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 6

– 3 8 (3d C ir . 2005) ( s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t ed fi ndi ngs t hatharm s t o an ethni c C hi nes e ci t i zen of I ndones i a w er e nots o s ever e as t o cons t i tut e per s ecut i on, and thata patt ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on w as notes t abl i s hed) . T heycert ai nl yunderw enthar ds hi ps , har as s m entand di s cr i m i nat i on. T hei rpl i ghtw as aggr avat ed byoffi ci al corrupt i on on t he partof the pol i ce. H ow ever , w e expl ai ned i n Fat i n v. I . N . S. , 12 F. 3d 1233, 1239 ( 3d C i r . 1993) , t hat m u c h m o re is n e e d e d to s u s ta in a c la im f o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. P e titio n e rs ’ b ri e f

d o e s n o t p ro v id e a n ys e p a ra te a n a lysis o f th e irC A T c la im . H ow ever , i ti s cl earfr om t he r ecor d t hatt hei rC A T cl ai m i s farw eake rt han the w i t hhol di ng of r emoval cl ai m and thati tw as pr oper l yr ej ect ed. T he mi s t r eatm entt hatt hey des cr i bed fa l l s w oeful l ys hor tof “t or tur e. ” S e e L u kw a g o v . A sh c ro ft , 329 F. 3d 157, 182- 8 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill d e n yth e P e titio n f o r R e v ie w .