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 8-30-2007 

# Ja ya di 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 . 06-1542

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 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 " J a ya d i v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 519. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/519T he H onor abl e A . W al l ace T as hi m a, Seni orC i r cui tJ udge, U ni t ed St at es C our tof * A p p e a ls f

o r t h e N in th C ir c u it, s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n . 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 

### No. 06- 1542 AC HM AD JAYA DI,

Peti ti on er v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES;

HO ME LAND SE CU RI TY ,

R esp o n d ents

PETI TI O N FO R R EV I EW O F A D EC I SI O N O F THE B OA RD OF I M M I GR ATI ON APPEALS

A gencyN o. A 96- 251- 989 I m m i gr at i on J udge: C har l es M . H oneym an Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay24, 2007 B efor e: B A R R Y , C H A G A R E S, and TA SH I M A , C i r cui tJ udges * ( Fi l ed: A ugus t30, 2007) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT2

T A SH I M A , C i r cui tJ udge. A chmad Ja y adi ( “J ay adi ”) 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 ppeal s ( “B I A ”) uphol di ng a dec i s i on of an I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) den y i ng him asy l um , w i thh oldi ng of rem ov al , and rel i ef un der the C on ven t i on A gainst T or tur e ( “C A T ”) . J ay adi cont ends that : ( 1) the I J err ed i n det erm i ni ng thathe had not s uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on on acc ountof hi s r el i gi on, ethni ci ty , and mem ber s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup; ( 2) the I J i m pr oper l yfai l ed t o cons i dera patt ern orpr act i ce of p e rse c u tio n o f

C h ristia n C h in e se h o m o se x u a ls in In d o n e sia ; (3 ) th e IJ e rre d in det erm i ni ng thathe w oul d nots uffe rfutur e per s ecut i on; and ( 4) the I J ’ s fi ndi ngs and con du ctshow ed a p redi sposi t i on t o find ag ai nsthim and viol at ed h i s r i gh tt o d ue p rocess of l aw . B eca us e w e conc l ude thatthe I J ’ s deci s i on i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence and thatJ ay adi ’ s r i ghtt o due pr oces s w as notvi ol at ed, w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on for re v ie w . I. Ja y a d i, a c iti z e n o f

In d o n e sia , co n ten d s th a t h e e n ter e d th e U n ited S tate s in o rd e r to es cape per s ecut i on and vi ol ence thatw as di r ect ed aga i ns thi m bythe nat i ve I ndones i an M us l i m popul at i on on acc ountof hi s bei ng ethni cal l yC hi nes e, a pr act i ci ng C hr i s t i an, and a h o m o se x u a l. Ja y a d i ap p lied f o r a sy lu m a n d th e a sy lu m o f f ice r re f e rre d th e m a tter to i m m i gr at i on court . A thi s hear i ng befor e the I J , J ay adi admi t t ed the al l egat i ons i n the not i ce t o appea r , r enew ed hi s r eques tforas y l um , s ubm i t t ed s uppor t i ng document s , and3

s o u g h t 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 . A s exampl es of per s ecut i on he s uffe r ed on ac countof bei ng ethni cal l yC hi nes e, Ja y a d i sta ted th a t h e a n d h is f a m ilyw e re a ttac k e d in th e ir h o m e b yM u slim s in 1 9 7 5 . H is fa ther a n d sev era l of

h is bro thers w ere stab b ed w ith k n ives , w h il e Ja y ad i, h is m o ther, sis ter , an d n iec e h id in a b e d ro o m . T h e re a f ter , a p o lice m a n in v o lv e d in th e c a se e v id e n tly a ss iste d in o b tain in g a b irth c e rtific a te f o r Ja y a d i w h ich p ro v id e d h im w ith a M u slim n a m e , fo r h is p ro tec tio n . B u t b e c a u se Ja y a d i re tain e d th e p h y sic a l ch a ra c ter istics o f h is C hi nes e ethni ci ty , he w as l aughed a tbyhi s cl as s m at es forhavi ng a M us l i m name w hen h e lo o k e d C h in e s e . J a y a d i te s tif ie d th a t h e w a s a s s a u lte d in 1 9 8 9 b e c a u s e o f h is e th n ic ity. H e had be en w ai t i ng ata bus s t op w hen s om e nat i ve I ndones i ans appr oache d hi m and s ai d, forexampl e, “H eyC hi nes e y ou getaw ayfr om m ycountry , thi s i s n’ ty our s , ” and demanded m oney . J ay adi t es t i fi ed thatone man t ook a cha i n and w al l etfr om hi m , and thathe w as knocked dow n and bea t en w hi l e on the gr ound, r equi r i ng s t i t ches t o hi s foot and i nj ur i ng hi s thum b. H e al s o t es t i fi ed, how ever , thathe di d notexper i ence anyother in c id e n ts th a t h e b e lie v e d w e re d u e to h is e th n ic ity. J ay adi al s o s oughtr el i ef on a ccountof hi s C athol i c r el i gi on, ci t i ng a bomb sca r e at h is c h u rc h o n C h ristm a s E v e , 2 0 0 0 . N o b o m b w a s f o u n d , b u t a b o m b e x p lo d e d a t a c h u rc h f o u r o r f iv e m iles a w a y . Ja y a d i tes tifie d th a t h e w o u ld f e e l th a t h e n e e d e d to g o to chur ch s urr ept i t i ous l y , butacknow l edged thathe had ne verper s onal l yhad anynegat i ve exper i ence s i n I ndones i a bec aus e of hi s C athol i c fa i th. T he 2004 St at e D epart m ent4

C ountryR eportforI ndones i a i ndi cat es thatthe governm entgener al l yr es pect s the r i ght underthe I ndones i an C ons t i tut i on t o w or s hi p acc or di ng t o one’ s ow n r el i gi on orbel i ef, an d cit es “ n o table a d v an ce s in interreli g iou s toleran ce an d co m m u n icati o n . ” T h e R ep o rt in d ica tes th a t th e In d o n e sia n M in istryo f R e lig io u s A f

f a irs e x ten d s o f

f icia l sta tu s to C athol i ci s m and, al though s om e r el i gi ous vi ol ence occurr ed dur i ng the t i m e per i od c o v e re d b yth e R e p o rt , th e g o v e rn m e n t a tte m p te d to c o m b a t it. Ja y a d i als o tes tifie d th a t h is f a m ilyf e a rs f o r h is s a f e tyin In d o n e sia a n d to ld h im to lea v e th e c o u n tryb e c a u se h e is h o m o se x u a l. Ja y a d i ad d e d th a t h e d id n o t g o o u t so c ially w i th hi s partneri n I ndones i a bec aus e ther e w er e no pl ace s forhom os exual s , and thathe had r ead on the I nt ernetthatther e w as a new r egul at i on i n I ndones i a thatw oul d r ender h o m o se x u a lityill e g a l. W h e n a sk e d if h e h a d e n c o u n ter e d a n y“ n e g a tiv e in c id e n ts” in I ndones i a due t o hi s s exual or i ent at i on, how ever , he r es ponded, “[n] one, notr eal l y . ” W hen the I J r efe r r ed t o r eport s i n t he r ecor d thatther e had be en gayfi l m fes t i val s and a gaypri de p arade i n Indo nesi a i n 1 99 9, Jay adi express ed h i s dou bts abo ut these occurr ence s , butthe r ecor d al s o di s cl os ed addi t i onal i nform at i on aboutattr act i ons for h o m o s e x u a l to u ri s ts a n d o th e rs in In d o n e s ia . T he I J deni ed r el i ef. H e found thatJ ay adi had fa i l ed t o s at i s fyhi s bur den of a d d u c i n g e v i d e n c e o f

p a s tp e r s e c u t i o n o n a c c o u n to f h i s Ch i n e s e e th n i c i ty , Ca th o l i c i s m, and homosexua l i ty , expl ai ni ng i n partthatthe s i ngl e r obbery/as s aul ti n 1989 di d not cons t i tut e pas tper s ecut i on, “eve n w hen combi ned w i th the otherl es s eri nci dent s of5

h a ra ss m e n t, i n su lt an d d isc rim in a tio n .” T h e IJ a lso re jec ted Ja y a d i’s c laim o f a w e llfounded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on. H ow ever , the I J exer ci s ed hi s di s cr et i on t o gr ant J ay adi ’ s al t ernat i ve r eques tforvol unt arydepartur e. O n appea l , the B I A di s m i s s ed the a p p e a l, a d o p tin g a n d a f f ir m in g th e IJ ’s d e c is io n . T h is p e titio n f o r r e v ie w f

o llo w e d . II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 1) t o r evi ew a fi nal or derof r e mo v a l . Wh e n th e BI A a f f i r ms a n I J ’ s d e c i s i o n wi th o u to p i n i o n , a s o c c u rr e d h e r e , we rev iew the IJ’s o p inion an d rea so n ing . S m ri k o v . A sh cro ft, 3 8 7 F . 3 d 2 7 9 , 2 8 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ); D ia v. A sh cro ft, 3 5 3 F . 3 d 2 2 8 , 2 4 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (en b an c). W e re v iew the IJ’s fac tual det erm i nat i on of an a l i en’ s el i gi bi l i tyforas y l um underthe s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d. A bdul r ahman v. A s hcr oft , 330 F. 3d 587, 597 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . A ccor di ngl y , t he I J ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs “w i l l be uphel d t o the ext entthattheyar e ‘ s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr obat i ve evi dence on the r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e, ’ ” and maybe rev erse d o n lyif an yrea so n ab le fa ctfind er w o u ld b e c o m p ell ed to m ak e a co n tr ary det erm i nat i on. I d. ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) ; 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ( B ) . J ay adi cont ends thatt he I J unr eas onabl yconcl uded thathe fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h pas tper s ecut i on and a w el l - founded fea rof futur e per s ecut i on, ei therone of w hi ch, i f i thad bee n s how n, w oul d have r ender ed hi m el i gi bl e foras y l um as a r efuge e. See 8 U . S. C . §§ 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) , 1158( b) ( 1) ; L i e v. A s h c ro f t, 3 9 6 F .3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 4 -3 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). W i th r es pectt o J ay adi ’ s fi r s tar gum enti n s uppor tof thi s pos i t i on, w e conc l ude that6

s ubs t ant i al r ecor d evi dence s uppor t s the I J ’ s fi ndi ng thatJ ay adi ’ s as s ert ed hi s t oryof bei ng a vi ct i m of hi s fami l y ’ s i nt i m i dat i on i n 1975, the i nci denti n 1989, and i ns ul t s and har as s m ent , al l atthe hands of non- governm ent al fel l ow ci t i zens , does notqual i fyas p erse cu ti o n o n ac co u n t of h is C atho li cism , C h ines e e thn ici ty , o r ho m o sex u ali ty . “[ A ]s w i th anycl ai m of per s ecut i on, the ac t s m us tbe comm i t t ed bythe governm entorfor ces the governm enti s ei therunabl e orunw i l l i ng t o contr ol . ” Sukw anputr a v. G onzal es , 434 F . 3 d 6 2 7 , 6 3 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); G ao v . A sh cro ft, 2 9 9 F . 3 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). A cc o rd L i e, 396 F. 3d at536 ( “W e agr ee w i th the N i nth and Tent h C i r cui t s thatL i e’ s acc ountof tw o i s ol at ed cr i m i nal act s [ac compani ed bythe us e of r aci al epi thet s ] , perpetr at ed by unknow n as s ai l ant s , w hi ch r es ul t ed onl yi n the theftof s om e per s onal pr opertyand a m i nori nj ury , i s nots uffi ci ent l ys ever e t o be cons i der ed per s ecut i on. ”) ; A bdi l l e v. A s hcr oft , 242 F. 3d 477, 494- 495 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( fi ndi ng pr offe r ed evi dence of p e rs e c u tio n in a d e q u a te to w a rr a n t o v e rt u rn in g B IA ’s d e c is io n ). J ay adi ’ s s econd a r gum enti s thatthe B I A ’ s deci s i on m us tbe r ever s ed bec aus e the I J nevercons i der ed the evi dence he s ubm i tt ed s ugges t i ng a patt ern orpr act i ce of p erse cu ti o n that w o u ld h av e led to a f ind ing that h e h ad a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on. J ay adi r el i es on a port i on of Sukw anputr a, w her e the courtr equi r ed the c o n sid e ra tio n o f

p a ttern -o r-p ra c tice e v id e n c e o n re m a n d w h e n th e IJ d id n o t “s p e c if ica lly addr es s [] w hethera patt ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on exi s t ed. ” 434 F. 3d at637. H er e, how ever , the I J s peci fi cal l yaddr es s ed and r ej ect ed J ay adi ’ s evi dence of a purpor t ed7

p a ttern o r p ra c tice o f

d isc rim in a tio n . S u k w a n p u tra is, th e re f o re , n o t co n tro lli n g o n th is is s u e . T hi r d, w e s i m i l ar l yconcl ude thatJ ay adi fai l ed t o es t abl i s h a w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on. See Zubeda v. A s hcr oft , 333 F. 3d 463, 469 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( out l i ni ng stan d ard ); S u k w an p u tr a, 43 4 F . 3 d at 63 7 (sam e). A s a p reli m inarym att er, be ca u se th e IJ found thatJ ay adi had notdemonstr at ed pas tper s ecut i on, J ay adi i s notent i t l ed t o a p re s u m p tio n th a t h e h a s a w e ll- f o u n d e d f e a r o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n . S e e 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 . 1 3 (b)(1 ); L ie, 3 9 6 F . 3 d at 53 5 . M o reo v er, Jay ad i’ s ca se is d ist ing u isha b le fro m In re O - Z - & I - Z - , 22 I . & N . D ec. 23 ( B I A 1998) , beca us e i n thatcas e, the al l eged i nci dent s of per s ecut i on w er e r eport ed t o t he pol i ce a nd the pol i ce pr om i s ed t o t ake c ar e of them each t i m e, bu tnev er t oo k acti on . Id. at24 . T here i s no co m parabl e evidence in Jay adi’ s case o f th e s ta te ’s c o m p lic ity in th e a lle g e d a c ts o f v io le n c e . A c c o rd A b d ille , 2 4 2 F .3 d a t 4 9 5 . A ccor di ngl y , and gi ven the appl i cabl e countryr eport , w e conc l ude thatthe I J ’ s deci s i on w as s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . See, e. g. , X i e v. A s hcr oft , 359 F. 3d 239, 244 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( “Even as s um i ng the [St at e D epart m entC ountry ] R eportw as vague or am b igu o u s, so lon g as th e B IA co u ld h av e u sed the R ep o rtto co n clud e tha t X ie’s s t er i l i zat i on cl ai m i s unt enabl e, the B I A i s ent i t l ed t o do s o. ”) ; K ay embe v. A s hcr oft , 334 F .3 d 2 3 1 , 2 3 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( “ J u s t b e c a u s e th e S ta te D e p a rt m e n t r e p o rt c u ts b o th w a y s . . . d o e s n o t m e a n th a t itd o e s n o t co n stitu te s u b sta n tial e v id e n c e .”). N o tab ly , w e h a v e h e ld thatvi ol ence di r ect ed aga i ns tC hi nes e C hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a “doe s notappea rt o be8

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, ” Li e, 396 F. 3d at537, and Ja y a d i f a iled to a d d u c e e v id e n c e th a t w o u ld h a v e w a rra n ted a c o n tra ryc o n c lu sio n in h is c a s e . Four th, w e r ej ectJ ay adi ’ s cont ent i on thatthe I J ’ s fi ndi ngs and conduc ts how ed a p r e d i s p o s i t i o n t o f

i n d a g a i n s th i m a n d v i o l a t e d h i s r i g h tt o d u e p r o c e s s . T o th e c o n tr a r y, the I J and B I A pr oper l yconcl uded thatJ ay adi di d nothave a hi s t oryof pas tper s ecut i on or , bas ed on the i m pr ovi ng condi t i ons and s i tuat i on i n I ndones i a both forr el i gi ous and e th n ic to ler a n c e a n d a s c o n c e rn s h o m o se x u a lity , as d isc lo se d in th e re c o rd , a w e llfounded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on. I m por t ant l y , “[m]e r e gene r al i zed l aw l es s nes s and vi ol ence betw een di ver s e popul at i ons , of the s or tw hi ch abounds i n num er ous countr i es a n d in f licts m ise ryu p o n m ill io n s o f in n o c e n t p e o p le d a ilya ro u n d th e w o rld , g e n e ra llyis n o t s u f f ic ie n t to p e rm it th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l to g ra n t a s y lu m .” K o n a n v . A tto rn e yG e n ., 4 3 2 F .3 d 4 9 7 , 5 0 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (c itatio n a n d q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). M o re o v e r, in or dert o be ent i t l ed t o r el i ef unde rthe C A T , J ay adi “bea r s the bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng t hat i ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthathe . . . w oul d be t or tur ed i f r emoved t o [I ndones i a] . ” Z ubeda, 333 F. 3d at471 ( ci t at i on and quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . J ay adi fai l ed t o m ake su ch a sh o w ing . S ee also G u o v . A sh cro ft, 3 8 6 F . 3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 1 n . 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (“[A ]n appl i cantw ho does notqual i fyforas y l um al s o does notqual i fyforw i thhol di ng of r emoval . ”) ; Sevoi an v. A s hcr oft , 290 F. 3d 166, 174- 77 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( des cr i bi ng s ta n d a rd s f

o r r e lie f u n d e r t h e C A T ).A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude thatthe I J r eas onabl yfound thatJ ay adi fai l ed t o m eet

his bu rden of

show i ng that the cit ed inci den t s w ere s uff i ci entl ysevere t o co nst i tute past per s ecut i on, thathe had a w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on, orthathe w as ent i t l ed t o r el i ef unde rthe C A T . W e furtherconcl ude thatJ ay adi ’ s r i ghtt o due pr oces s w as not v io la te d . III . F o r th e f o reg o ing rea so n s, w e w il l den yJay ad i’ s p eti ti o n fo r rev iew o f th e B IA ’s re m o v a l o rd e r d e n y in g h im a s y lu m , 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 .

9