AL D- 1 6 8 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- 4374 E RL A S UNAR J O; I M AN MOCHAMAD, P eti ti o n ers v . ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

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 os . A 097- 752- 965, A 097- 752- 966) I m m i gr at i on J udge: C har l es H oneym an Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 15, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , A M B R O and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed : A pr i l 20, 2010)

OP I NI ON P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i oner s E r l a Sunar

j o and I m an M ahmoud C hanad s eek r evi ew of a f i nal or der of r emoval i s s ued byt he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) . T he G overnm enthas m oved fors um m aryaff i r m ance of the B I A ’ s deci s i on. B eca us e the appe al pr es ent s no2

s u b s t a n t i a l q u e s t i o n , we wi l l g r a n tth e mo t i o n a n d d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. I. L ead pe t i t i onerE r l a Sunar j o i s an ethni c C hi nes e, nat i ve and c i t i zen of I ndones i a, a n d a p ra c ticin g C h ristia n . Im a n M o c h a m a d , h e r h u sb a n d a n d d e p e n d e n t re sp o n d e n t, i s al s o a nat i ve and c i t i zen of I ndones i a. Sunar

j o fi l ed an a ppl i cat i on foras y l um and w i thhol di ng of r emoval l es s t han one y earaft erherarr i val i n t he U ni t ed St at es . H er appl i cat i on w as notbas ed on anyal l egat i ons of pas tper s ecut i on i n I ndones i a, buton her fear of fu ture persecut i on based o n a p at t ern or pract i ce of persecut i on of ethnic C hinese C h ri sti an s in In d o n esia. T h e Im m igrati o n Ju d g e (“ IJ”) d en ied re li ef b ec au se th e re co rd di d nots uppor ta patt ern orpr act i ce f i ndi ng. A R 31. I n conduct i ng a de novo r evi ew of the di s pos i t i ve l egal i s s ues on appea l , the B I A concl uded thatthe I J corr ect l yfound that Sunar j o fai l ed t o m eetherbur den of pr oof foras y l um and w i t hhol di ng of r emoval becau se she had no test abli shed a p at t ern or pract i ce of persecut i on of ethnic C hinese C hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a. A R 2. T he B I A found thatthe I J had corr ect l yappl i ed Li e v. A s hcr oft , 396 F. 3d 530, 537- 38 ( 3d C i r . 2005) , and M at t erof A - M , 23 I & N D ec. 737, 741- 42 ( B I A 2005) , i n r eac hi ng i t s concl us i on thatno pat t ern orpr act i ce w as es t abl i s hed byt he r ecor d i n t hi s cas e. A R 3. T he B I A al s o aff i r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on t o deny Sunar j o’ s m ot i on fora cont i nuance t o obt ai n t he t es t i m onyof a r ece nt l y - di s cover ed expertw i tnes s , fi ndi ng t hatSunar j o had fa i l ed t o demonstr at e “good c aus e” f orthe c o n tin u a n c e o r s h o w th a t h e r h e a ri n g w a s in a n yw a yu n f a ir . Id . S u n a rjo f iled a tim e lyp e tit io n f

o r re v iew a rg u in g (1 ) th a t th e B o a rd e rre d in3

a f f irm in g th e IJ’ s d e n ial o f h e r m o tio n f

o r a c o n tin u a n c e , an d (2 ) th a t th e B o a rd e rre d in fi ndi ng thats he had notm etherbur den of pr ovi ng thats he and he rhus band fa ce a rea so n ab le po ssibil ityo f p erse cu ti o n in In d o n esia. T h e G o v ern m en t m o v ed fo r sum m ary a f f ir m a n c e o f

th e B IA ’s d e c is io n . II. W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w a f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a ). B eca us e the B I A i s s ued i t s ow n opi ni on, w e r evi ew i t s deci s i on r atherthan the I J ’ s . See L i v. A t t ’ yG en. , 400 F. 3d 157, 162 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . H ow ever , w e l ook t o t he dec i s i on of the I J t o the ext entt hatt he B I A defe r s t o oradopt s the I J ’ s r eas oni ng. C havarr i a v. G o n z a le z , 4 4 6 F .3 d 5 0 8 , 5 1 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). W e hav e j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew an IJ’ s deci si on t o d enya con t i nu ance, and d o so f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . H a s h m i v . A tt’ yG e n ., 5 3 1 F .3 d 2 5 6 , 2 5 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). W e re v ie w a g e n c yf

a c tu a l d e te rm in a tio n s f

o r s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . W o n g v . A tt’ yG e n ., 539 F. 3d 225, 230 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . T he B oar d’ s concl us i ons r egar di ng evi dence of the w el l - founded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on ar e fi ndi ngs of fa ct . I d. W e w i l l uphol d s uch d e ter m in a tio n s “ u n les s th e e v id e n c e n o t o n lysu p p o rts a c o n tra ryc o n c lu sio n , b u t co m p e ls it.” Z h a n g v . G o n z a le s , 4 0 5 F .3 d 1 5 0 , 1 5 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( in te rn a l c ita tio n s o m itte d ). W her e an a ppeal pr es ent s no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on, w e mayt ake s um m aryact i on. See T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 27. 4. III . W e fi r s tcons i derSunar j o’ s cl ai m thatthe B I A i ncorr ect l ydet erm i ned thatthe4

recor d ev i den ce did no test abli sh a patt ern or pract i ce of persecut i on againstC hinese C hri st i ans i n Indo nesi a. In order t o sho w a fear of fu ture persecut i on the ap pli cant m ust sh o w a w e ll-fo u n d e d su b jec tiv e f e a r, “s u p p o rte d b yo b

jec tiv e e v id e n c e th a t p e rse c u tio n is a r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i t y . ” C hang v. I N S, 119 F. 3d 1055, 1066 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . T he o b jec tiv e p ro n g is s a tisf

ied e ith e r b ysh o w in g th a t th e a p p lica n t w o u ld b e in d iv id u a lly s i ngl ed outforper s ecut i on, ort hat“‘ t her e i s a patt ern orpr act i ce i n hi s orhercountr yof nat i onal i ty. . . 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 canton 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 o p i n i o n . ’ ” S u k wa n p u t r a v . Go n z a l e s , 4 3 4 F . 3 d 6 2 7 , 6 3 7 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( q u o t i n g 8 C. F . R. 208. 13( b) ( 2) ( i i i ) ( A ) ) . T o cons t i tut e a “ pat t ern orpr act i ce, ” the per s ecut i on of the gr oup m us tbe “s y s t emi c, pervas i ve, oror gani zed. ” W ong v. A t t ’ yG en. , 539 F. 3d 225, 233 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . I n addi t i on, t he ac t s of per s ecut i on m us tbe comm i t t ed bythe governm entor for ces t he governm enti s ei t herunabl e orunw i l l i ng t o contr ol . Sukw anputr a, 434 F. 3d at 637. T he ques t i on of w hethera patt ern orpr act i ce e xi s t s i s a ques t i on of fa ctthatm us tbe det erm i ned bas ed on the i ndi vi dual r ecor d befor e the court . I d. atn. 10 ( emphasi zi ng t hat a patt ern orpr act i ce f

i ndi ng w as notfor ecl os ed bypr evi ous hol di ng beca us e thatcas e had re lie d o n d if

f e re n t c o u n tr yc o n d itio n s e v id e n c e ). S u n a rjo ’s c laim is n o t th a t sh e w o u ld b e sin g led o u t f o r p e rse c u tio n u p o n re tu rn to Indon esi a, bu tt hat there i s a “pat t ern or pract i ce” of dis cri m i nati on againstet hn i c C hinese C hr i s t i ans l i ke her s el f. I n r ej ect i ng Sunar j o’ s patt ern orpr act i ce c l ai m , the B I A found thatthe countr ycondi t i ons r epor ti n evi dence di d notes t abl i s h “s y s t emi c, pervas i ve, or5

or gani zed pe r s ecut i on” of e t hni c C hi nes e i n I ndones i a, and conc l uded thatal t hough “the doori s s t i l l open fora fi ndi ng of patt ern orpr act i ce” i n futur e ca s es , “w e ar e not per s uaded thats uch has been s how n her e. ” A R 3. T he B I A ’ s fi ndi ngs ar e s uppor t ed by su b sta n tial e v id e n c e . S u n a rjo h a s n o t d istin g u ish e d h e r a rg u m e n t, or th e re c o rd it i s b u ilt on, fr om s i m i l arcl ai m s t hatw e have r ej ect ed i n t he pas t . See W ong, 539 F. 3d at233- 34 ( r ej ect i ng as “w i t houtm er i t ” the cont ent i on that“the [2003 a nd 2004] St at e D epart m ent r epor t s and otherbackgr ound m at er i al s documenta patt ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on of C hi nes e C hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a”) ; L i e v. A s hcr oft , 396 F. 3d 530, 537- 58 ( 3d C i r . 2005) (fi nd i ng t hat the 1 99 9 C ou ntryR epo rti nd i cat ed a sha rp decl i ne in vi olence against C hi nes e C hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a and thatthe evi dence of vi ol ence s ubm i t t ed w as not s uffi ci ent l yw i des pr ead a s t o cons t i tut e a pa t t ern orpr act i ce) . A l t hough Sunar j o r el i ed on the St at e D epart m entC ount r yR epor tfor2007 ( r el eas ed M ay8, 2008) , ourm os tr ece nt deci s i ons have not ed thatt he r eport s fr om 2005 t o 2007 documenta tr end t ow ar d “s i m i l arori m pr oved” tr eatm entforC hi nes e C hr i s t i ans . See, e. g. , W ong, 539 F. 3d at 233- 34. A s s uch, w e fi nd no err ori n t he B I A ’ s concl us i on thatthe r ecor d i n t hi s cas e w as in s u f f ic ie n t to s u p p o rt a f

in d in g o f a p a tte rn o r p ra c tic e o f p e rs e c u tio n . W e n e x t co n sid e r S u n a rjo ’s c laim th a t th e B o a rd e rre d in c o n c lu d in g th a t th e IJ d id n o t v io late h e r rig h t to d u e p ro c e ss w h e n h e d e n ied h e r m o tio n f o r a c o n tin u a n c e . S u n a rjo ar gues t hatt he I J s houl d have a l l ow ed hert o i ntr oduce e vi dence conce r ni ng r ece nt devel opm ent s i n I ndones i a bec aus e i tr el i ed exc l us i vel yon pr ece denti n r ej ect i ng her patt ern orpr act i ce c l ai m s . W e di s agr ee.6

An I J ma y“ g r a n ta mo t i o n f o rc o n t i n u a n c e f

o rg o o d c a u s e s h o wn . ” 8 C. F . R. 1003. 29. W e r evi ew an I J ’ s deci s i on t o denya mot i on fora cont i nuance forabus e of d isc re tio n , an d w ill re v e rse o n lyif th e IJ’ s d e c isio n is a rb itrar y , irratio n a l o r c o n tra ryto law . H a sh m i, 53 1 F .3 d a t 2 5 9 . A n im m ig ra tio n ju d g e m a yp ro p e rlyc o n sid e r th e m e rits of the under l y i ng appl i cat i on forr el i ef w hen dec i di ng w hethert o denya cont i nuance . See Ponce- L ei va v. A s hcr oft , 331 F. 3d 369, 377 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( cons i der i ng m er i t s of as y l um c la im in d e c id in g to a llo w c a s e to p ro c e e d w ith o u t c o u n s e l) . I n hi s or al deci s i on, t he I J concl uded thatSunar j o’ s patt ern orpr act i ce c l ai m w as w i thoutm er i t , and deni ed the mot i on fora cont i nuance beca us e he w as notconvi nced that a d d iti o n a l ev id e n c e w o u ld h a v e b e e n p ro b a tiv e : A lth o u g h re sp o n d e n t h a s, o n a tim e lyb a sis , so u g h t a c o n tin u a n c e to d a yto tryt o getanotherexpertt hats he has i dent i fi ed w ho s he bel i eves m i ght i nd eed co nclude t hat there i s a pat t ern or pract i ce of persecut i ng C hinese C hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a, even i f s uch a c oncl us i on w er e r eac hed, bas ed upon the fa ct s on t hi s r ecor d . . . t hi s C our tconcl udes thatthe or gani zed, sy ste m ic, o r p e rv a siv e sta n d a rd h a s n o t b e e n m e t, giv e n th e c u rre n t an a ly sis and i m pl ement at i on of thats t andar d bythe pr ece dent s thatcurr ent l ybi nd th is C o u rt. A R 6 6 -6 7 . T h e IJ d id n o t re lyso lelyo n c a se p re c e d e n t in m a k in g th is det erm i nat i on, but“cons i der ed al l t he evi dence i n t he r ecor d, ” w hi ch i ncl uded an aff i davi tfr om expertD r . J eff r eyW i nt er s , a pr ofes s orw i t h deca des of r es ear ch expe r i ence i n Sout heas tA s i a and I ndones i a, an af fi davi tfr om the D eputyD i r ect orforG overnm ent R el at i ons att he I nt ernat i onal R es cue Com m i t t ee, ar t i cl es and comm uni cat i ons r efl ect i ng evol vi ng countr ycondi t i ons i n I ndones i a, as w el l as the mostr ece ntC ount r yR epor ton7

H um an R i ght s Pr act i ces forI ndones i a, r el eas ed bythe B ur eau of D emocr acy , H um an R ig h ts a n d L a b o r o f

th e D e p a rtm e n t o f

S tate o n M a rc h 1 1 , 2 0 0 8 . A R 5 7 -5 8 , 6 7 . W h ile due pr oces s r equi r es t hatSunar j o be gi ven a “ r eas onabl e opportuni t yt o pr es entevi dence on [her ] behal f, ” A dbul r ahman v. A s hcr oft , 330 F. 3d 587, 596 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) , i tdoes notr equi r e an I J t o perm i tunl i m i t ed addi t i ons t o t he r ecor d i f he det erm i nes t heyw oul d be cumul at i ve orfrui t l es s . See J arbough v. A t t ’ yG en. , 483 F. 3d 1 8 4 , 1 9 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (d e n y in g c o n tin u a n c e to se c u re e x p e rt tes tim o n yd id n o t v io late due pr oces s w her e r ecor d cont ai ned an a r t i cl e bythe s ame expertand ther e w as no e v id e n c e th a t h is in -c o u rt te s tim o n yw o u ld b e m a te ri a lly d if f e re n t) ; M o rg a n v . A tt’ yG e n ., 432 F. 3d 226, 235 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( fi ndi ng no due pr oces s vi ol at i on w her e al i en coul d not demonstr at e how addi t i onal evi dence obt ai ned dur i ng cont i nuance w oul d have i m pact ed the o u tcom e o f h er c ase ). W e agr ee w i t h t he B I A t hatthe r ecor d does notr efl ecta due pr oces s vi ol at i on or thatthe hea r i ngs w er e conduc t ed i n a funda m ent al l yunfai rm anner . Fur t herm or e, s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s t he B I A ’ s concl us i on thatSunar j o fai l ed t o s how “good caus e” f ora cont i nuance . N otonl yhad otherexpertevi dence r egar di ng the tr eatm entof e th n ic C h in e se C h ristia n s a lre a d yb e e n p lac e d in th e re c o rd , b u t S u n a rjo f a iled to demonstr at e thatt he pr offe r ed expe r tt es t i m onyw oul d have a ffe ct ed the out come of t he cas e. U ndert he fa ct s and ci r cumst ance s pr es ent ed her e, the I J ’ s deci s i on w as not arbi tr ary , i r r at i onal , orcontr aryt o l aw , and the B oar d di d noterri n uphol di ng i t . See H a s h m i, 5 3 1 F .3 d a t 2 5 9 ; P o n c e -L e iv a , 3 3 1 F .3 d a t 3 7 7 .8

A ccor di ngl y , Sunar

j o’ s pet i t i on forr evi ew does notr ai s e a s ubs t ant i al ques t i on on appea l . W e w i l l t her efor e gr antt he G overnm ent ' s m ot i on fors um m aryaff i r m ance and denythe pet i t i on forr evi ew . See Thi r d C i r cui tL A R 27. 4; I . O . P. 10. 6.