2009 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 12-23-2009 

# S uh ar t ono 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 . 08-1848

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_2009

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 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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 " S uh ar t ono v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 52. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/52NOT 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. 08- 1848

___________ H A R D JA N T O S U H A R T O N O ; N A N A K E N T JA N A W A T I; YOHAN E S CH RI S T I ANT O HAR DJ ANT O, P eti ti o n ers

v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ 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 79- 318- 118, A 79- 318- 119 and A 79- 318- 120) Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on orabl e D on al d V . F erl i se

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

D ece m ber8, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L , FI SH E R and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed D ece m ber23, 2009 )

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i onerH ar dj ant o Suhar t ono, an ethni c- C hi nes e C hr i s t i an and c i t i zen of Indon esi a, enter ed the U nit ed S t at es i n 2 00 1 w i th a v i si t or’ s vi sa. H e ov ers t ay ed the vi saT he otherpet i t i oner s i n thi s cas e ar e Suhart ono’ s w i fe a nd s on, w ho s ought 1 d e ri v a tiv e re lie f

u n d e r S u h a rt o n o ’s a p p lic a tio n . 2 and l at err ece i ved a not i ce t o appea r . Suhar t ono appea r ed bef or e the I J i n 2006 and conce ded r emovabi l i ty , buts oughtas y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e, and vol unt arydepartur e. T he I J gr ant ed the r eques tfor v o lun taryd ep arture, bu t den ied S u h arton o ’s oth er req u ests fo r reli ef , an d the B IA d i s mi s s e d S u h a r t o n o ’ s s u b s e q u e n ta p p e a l . S u h a r t o n o th e n f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. 1 I Suhar t ono t es t i fi ed that , w hi l e i n I ndones i a, he w or ked as a bus i nes s m an s el l i ng s t at i onerys uppl i es and medi ci ne. I n addi t i on, Suhar t ono w as act i ve as a mem berof the Pent ecos t al C hur ch of I ndones i a, forw hi ch he s erved on the governi ng counci l and part i ci pated i n m i ssi on aryw ork i n n earbyvil l ages. A tvar i ous t i m es , Suhar t ono exper i ence d poortr eatm ent , and des cr i bed i ns t ance s in w h ich in d iv id u a ls re p e a ted lyd e m a n d e d m o n e yf ro m h im a n d h is w if

e o r a ttem p ted to di s rupthi s r el i gi ous s ervi ces . I n 1999, Suhar t ono and hi s w i fe w er e i n a vi l l age s ever al m i l es fr om thei rhom e i n Sol o. Suhar t ono w as w ai t i ng i n hi s truck forhi s w i fe, w ho w as se lli n g g o o d s to a sto re o w n e r. A m a n late r id e n tifie d a s “ S in g o ,” a k n o w n c rim in a l in thatvi l l age, appr oache d Suhar t ono’ s truck and de m anded money . Suhar t ono r efus ed and fl ed the s cene , j oi ni ng hi s w i fe i n t he s t or e. Si ngo fol l ow ed hi m i nt o the s t or e and s ta b b e d S u h a rt o n o in th e h e a d , o s te n s ib ly b e c a u s e S u h a rt o n o re f u s e d to p a yh im .3

Suhar t ono l at err eport ed the i nci dentt o pol i ce, w ho di d nothi ng. H e di d notencount er S i ng o ag ai n b efore l eaving fo r the U nit ed S t at es. I n 2001, Suhar t ono’ s br other - i n- l aw i nform ed hi m thatSi ngo and otherm en, loo k ing fo r S u h arton o , h ad v isi ted th e h o m e o f S u h arton o ’s m o ther-in-law . T h e b roth eri n- l aw cl ai m ed t o have he ar d thatSi ngo w ant ed t o ki l l Suhar t ono beca us e he w oul d be pai d forki l l i ng a pas t or . Suhar t ono di d notknow w ho w oul d pr ovi de a r ew ar d forki l l i ng a pas t or , and expl ai ned onl ythatther e i s per s ecut i on agai ns tC hi nes e peopl e i n I ndones i a. In d en y ing reli ef

, the IJ f o u n d S u h arton o to b e c red ible, b u t r ea so n ed that there w as no evi dence thatthe s t abbi ng – the onl yi nci dentSuhar t ono i dent i fi ed thatcoul d be su f f icie n tlyse v e re to rise to th e lev e l o f p e rse c u tio n – w a s th e p ro d u c t o f a n im o sity t ow ar d Suhar t ono’ s s t atus as an ethni c- C hi nes e C hr i s t i an. A s t o Suhar t ono’ s fea rthat S ing o w o u ld h arm h im u p o n h is r eturn to In d o n esia, th e IJ n o ted th at th e b roth er-in-l aw ’s lette r, w h ich c o n tain e d sp e c u latio n a b o u t S in g o ’s a c tio n s a n d m o tiv e s, w a s in su f f icie n t to demonstr at e a r eas onabl e fe arof futur e per s ecut i on. T he I J fur thernot ed thatSuhar t ono p re se n ted n o e v id e n c e th a t S in g o h a d c o n tin u e d to lo o k f o r h im o r th a t an y o n e still i nt ended t o harm hi m . T he B I A aff i r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on as t o the pas tper s ecut i on cl ai m , and not ed thatSuhar t ono’ s futur e per s ecut i on cl ai m l acke d m er i t , as he pr es ent ed no evidence d em on strat i ng a patt ern or pract i ce of persecut i on againstet hn i c-C hinese C hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a.4

II W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rS u h a r t o n o ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w u n d e r8 U. S . C. § 1252( 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 that of the IJ. S ee L i v. A t t ’yG en. , 40 0 F . 3d 15 7, 16 2 (3d C i r. 20 05 ). H ow ever, w e al so loo k to the d ec isi o n o f th e IJ to the ex tent that the B IA d ef ers to o r ad o p ts th e IJ’s r eas oni ng. See C havarr i a v. G onzal ez, 446 F. 3d 508, 515 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . W e r evi ew agenc yfac tual det erm i nat i ons fors ubs t ant i al evi dence , and 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 ). S u h a rto n o p re se n ts o n lytw o a rg u m e n ts o n a p p e a l: (1 ) th a t th e A g e n c yf a iled to p ro p e rly cons i derhi s pr om i nents t atus w i thi n hi s chur ch i n eval uat i ng the l i kel i hood he w oul d fac e futur e per s ecut i on, and ( 2) thatthi s C our ts houl d t ake j udi ci al not i ce of w or s eni ng condi t i ons forethni c- C hi nes e C hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a. S u h a rto n o ’s f

irst a rg u m e n t is tw o -f

o ld . F irst, h e c o n ten d s th a t th e B IA sh o u ld h a v e e x p re ss lyc o n sid e re d h is s tatu s a s a p ro m in e n t an d p u b liclya c tiv e c h u rc h m e m b e r in eval uat i ng w hetherhe coul d demonstr at e a l i kel i hood of futur e per s ecut i on. I n that re g a rd , w e u n d e rsta n d th e B IA to h a v e a d o p ted th e IJ’ s a n a ly sis a s to S u h a rto n o ’s c laim that h e f ac es a p arti cu lari ze d ri sk o f f u ture p erse cu ti o n . S ee A . R . 3 (“In asm u ch as w e a re i n agr eementw i th the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s deci s i on, w e af fi r m hi s deci s i on bas ed upon and forthe r eas ons s etfor th t her ei n. ”) ; s ee a l s o A . R . 38- 39 ( I J deci s i on di s cus s i ng5

S u h arton o ’s m em b ersh ip an d lead ersh ip ro le i n the P en teco stal C h u rch ). Second, Suhar t ono ar gues thatthe I J err ed i n det erm i ni ng thathe di d not re a so n a b lyf

e a r f u tu re p e rse c u tio n b a se d o n h is s tatu s a s a p a sto r. T o d e m o n stra te e lig ib ili tyf

o r a sy lu m b a se d o n a f

e a r o f f u tu re p e rse c u tio n , an a p p lica n t m u st d e m o n stra te thathe “ha s a genui ne fe ar , and thata r eas onabl e per s on i n [hi s ] ci r cumst ance s w oul d fea r per s ecut i on i f r eturned t o [hi s ] nat i ve country . ” A bdul r ahman v. A s hcr oft , 330 F. 3d 587, 5 9 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). T o sa tisf yth e o b jec tiv e p ro n g , a p e tit io n e r m u st s h o w th a t h e w o u ld be i ndi vi dual l ys i ngl ed outforper s ecut i on ordemonstr at e a pa t t ern orpr act i ce of p erse cu ti o n o f sim il arlysitu ated ind ividu als. L ie v. A sh cro ft, 3 9 6 F . 3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 6 (3d C ir . 2005) . I n s uppor tof hi s part i cul ar i zed r i s k cl ai m , Suhar t ono ar gued thathi s br other - i nl aw ’s l et t er dem on strat ed thatS i ng o int end ed to harm him becau se of h i s st atus as a chur ch l eade r . G i ven thatthe s t at ement s i n the l ett erw er e bas ed on hea r s ayand s pecul at i on aboutSi ngo’ s i nt entand mot i vat i on, w e bel i eve the I J r eas onabl yconcl uded th a t , wi th o u tmo r e , S u h a r t o n o f a i l e d t o me e th i s b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g e l i g i b i l i tyf

o ra s y l u m. T o the ext entthatSuhar t ono cont ends thatthe A gencys houl d have f ound a qual i fy i ng fea rof futur e per s ecut i on cl ai m bas ed on a pa t t ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on, the B I A j us t i fi abl yconcl uded thathe di d notpr es ents uffi ci entevi dence thatthe C hr i s t i an p o p u latio n in In d o n e sia – let a lo n e C h ristia n s w h o tak e a c tiv e lea d e rsh ip ro les in th e ir chur ches – ar e s ubj ectt o s uch a pa t t ern orpr act i ce. I ndeed, the 2005 St at e D epart m ent r eporton I ndones i a w as s ubm i t t ed t o the I J , and, as w e have not ed i n s ever al cas es , thatE ven i f w e w er e perm i t t ed t o cons i derevi dence thatw as notpartof the admi ni s tr at i ve 2 r ecor d, w e not e thatthe document at i on Suhar t ono as ks us t o t ake j udi ci al not i ce of w as n o t a c tu a lly su b m itte d to th e C o u rt . T h e re f o re w e h a v e n o th in g to re v ie w . 6 r eporti ndi cat es a tr end t ow ar d bett ertr eatm entforC hi nes e C hr i s t i ans . See, e. g. , Si oe T jen W o n g v . A tt’yG e n ., 5 3 9 F .3 d 2 2 5 , 2 3 3 -3 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (n o tin g th a t S tate D epart m entr eport s fr om 2005 t o 2007 des cr i be bett ercondi t i ons forC hi nes e C hr i s t i ans in In d o n e s ia ). F i n a l l y , S u h a r t o n o a r g u e s th a twe s h o u l d t a k e j u d i c i a l n o t i c e o f c e r t a i n n e ws art i cl es and o ther doc um ents show i ng i ncreased ho st i l i tyt ow ard ethn i c-C hinese C hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a. H ow ever , w e have hel d i ti m perm i s s i bl e t o t ake j udi ci al not i ce of devel opm ent s thatar i s e af t era fi nal agenc ydet erm i nat i on. See B er i s haj v. A s hr oft , 378 F . 3 d 3 1 4 , 3 3 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (cit ing S E C v . C h en eryC o rp., 3 1 8 U . S . 8 0 (19 4 3 )). 2 Ac c o r d i n g l y , we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.