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 Third C ir c uit 9-10-2008 

# S ut ard ji v . Atty Ge n U SA P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-2605

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re 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 Third C irc 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 2008 D e c i sion s by 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 more 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 ut ardji v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 547. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008/547NOT 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. 07- 2605

___________ R U S T A M A JI S U T A R D JI, Pet i t i oner

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 o. A 96- 260- 080 ) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M iriam K . M ill s

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

M ay1, 2008 B efor e: M C K E E , N Y G A A R D and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: Sept ember10, 2008)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM R us t amaj i Sut ar dj i pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a f i nal or derof r emoval i s s ued bythe B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) . Forthe r eas ons thatfol l ow , w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on.2

Sut ar dj i , a C hr i s t i an and na t i ve and c i t i zen of I ndones i a, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es o n D e c e m b e r 5 , 2 0 0 0 , as a B -2 n o n -im m ig ra n t v isito r a n d w a s a u th o riz e d to re m a in t empora r i l yw i thi n the U ni t ed St at es unt i l J une 4, 2001. O n A pr i l 1, 2003, Pet i t i onerw as is s u e d a N o tic e to A p p e a r, w h ic h a lle g e d th a t h e w a s in th e c o u n tr yw ith o u t a u th o ri z a tio n . I n r es pons e, he appl i ed foras 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 ( “C A T ”) , and vol unt arydepartur e. A thi s hear i ng befor e the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) , Sut ar dj i vol unt ar i l yw i thdr ew hi s unt i m el yappl i cat i on foras y l um . T he I J concl uded thatSut ar dj i had nots at i s fi ed the r e q u i r e me n t s f

o rwi th h o l d i n g o f

r e mov a l p u r s u a n tt o § 2 4 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( A) o ru n d e rth e CA T, butthe I J di d, how ever , gr anthi s appl i cat i on forvol unt arydepartur e. O n M ay4, 2007, th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ) d ism iss e d S u tar d ji’s a p p e a l. W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w th e f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l. 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 1 ). B ecause the B IA i ssued a d eci si on on the m eri t s, w e revi ew on l ythe B IA ’s , no tthe IJ’ s, d ec isi o n . G ao v . A sh cro ft, 2 9 9 F . 3 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). W e w il l sustain the B IA ’s det erm i nat i ons i f theyar e s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the r ecor d. A dbi l l e v. As h c r o f t , 2 4 2 F . 3 d 4 7 7 , 4 8 3 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) . Un d e rth e s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s t a n d a r d , we w i l l up ho l d the det erm i nati on s of t he B IA “un l ess the ev i den ce no ton l ysupp ort s a c o n tr a ry c o n c lu s io n , b u t c o m p e ls it.” Id . a t 4 8 3 -8 4 . S utar dji argues that the B IA err ed in con cl ud i ng that he fai l ed to est abli sh el i gibi l i tyfor w i thh oldi ng of rem ov al becau se i tfai l ed to con si der w hetherthere i s a3

p att ern o r pra cti ce o f p erse cu ti o n ag ains t eth n ic C h ines e C h ri sti an s in In d o n esia. In o rd e r to e sta b lish th a t h e is e n tit led to w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l, S u tar d

ji m u st d e m o n stra te thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthathe w i l l be s ubj ectt o per s ecut i on on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on i f he re tu rn e d to In d o n e s ia . 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 (b )( 3 )( A ). T h e B IA c o n c lu d e d , b a se d o n S u tar d ji’s te stim o n ya n d a f

f id a v it, th a t h e f

a iled to d e m o n s tr a te a “ c le a r p ro b a b ility” 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 W a n g v . Go n z a l e s , 4 0 5 F . 3 d 1 3 4 , 1 3 9 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ; s e e a l s o 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 3 1 (b )( 3 )( A ). T o est abli sh a w el l -foun ded fear of fu ture persecut i on an ap pli cant m ustfi rs t dem on strat e a subject i ve fe ar of persecut i on throug h credi ble t est i m on ythat [hi s] f e a r is g e n u in e . S e c o n d , the a p p lica n t m u st s h o w , o b jec tiv e ly , tha t “a re a so n a b le per s on i n the al i en’ s ci r cumst ance s w oul d fea rper s ecut i on i f r eturned t o the countryi n ques t i on. ” To sat i s fythe obj ect i ve pr ong, a pet i t i onerm us ts how [he] w ou l d b e i nd i vidual l ysi ng l ed o ut forpersecut i on or dem on strat e that “there i s a patt ern orpr act i ce i n hi s orhercountryof 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 the appl i cant . ” L ie v . A s h c ro f

t, 3 9 6 F .3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ). U p o n re v iew o f

th e re c o rd , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e re is s u b sta n tial e v id e n c e to s uppor tthe B I A ’ s deni al of w i thhol di ng of r emoval . Sut ar dj i t es t i fi ed thatw hi l e r es i di ng in In d o n e sia h e w a s ro b b e d o n c e . H o w e v e r, h is te stim o n yf a ils to d e sc rib e th e in c id e n t in anydet ai l . Sut ar dj i does nots t at e w hetherhe w as hur t , w ho comm i t t ed the r obbery , or w hatw as s t ol en. I n an af fi davi t , w hi ch w as admi t t ed i nt o evi dence , Sut ar dj i s t at es that “w i l d” ci vi l i ans “bea thi m up” and hi thi m i n the ey es . H e t es t i fi ed thatthes e att acks4

o c c u rre d in in ter v a ls f

ro m 1 9 9 2 u n til 1 9 9 7 . A g a in , S u tar d ji fa ils to p ro v id e a n yd e tails re g a rd in g w h o h it h im , h o w o f ten h e w a s a ttac k e d , an d w h a t m o tiv a ted th e a ttac k s. H is a f f id a v it also d e sc rib e s th e g e n e ra l co n d iti o n s th a t h e e x p e rie n c e d w h ile re sid in g in I n d o n e s i a , s t a t i n g th a tp e o p l e wo u l d a s k h i m f o rmo n e ya n d g i v e h i m a h a r d t i me . He al s o des cr i bes the r i ot s i n M ay1998, and the gene r al unr es ti n I ndones i a, s t at i ng thathe fe ars f o r his saf ety . S u tardji ’s af

fid av itstat es th at sev era l of h is fam il ym em b ers w ere a tta c k e d w h ile h e liv e d in In d o n e s ia , a n d th e c h u rc h th a t h e a tte n d e d w a s b u rn e d d o w n . A d d iti o n a lly , S u tar d

ji t e stif ied th a t o n e o f

h is s ib lin g s s til l re sid e s in In d o n e sia , an d th a t, w i th the excep t i on of o ne “m ug ging, ” she ha s not s uff ered anyharm . H i s parent s al so cont i nue t o l i ve i n I ndones i a. P e rse c u tio n is d e f

in e d a s “ th re a ts to life , co n f in e m e n t, t o rtu re , an d e c o n o m ic re stric tio n s s o se v e re th a t th e yc o n stitu te a th re a t to life o r f re e d o m .” L ie v . A sh c ro f t, 3 9 6 F . 3 d at 53 6 (qu o ti n g F ati n v . IN S , 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 c o n c lu d e d th a t th e in c id e n ts S u tar d ji t e stif ied re g a rd in g w e re in su f f icie n t to sa tisf

yh is b u rd e n o f

d e m o n s tr a tin g 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 . W e a g re e . T he pas ti nci dent s des cr i bed bySut ar dj i do notr i s e t o the l evel of per s ecut i on and d o n o t sup p o rta p resu m p ti o n o f f u ture p erse cu ti o n . T h e f ac t th at he h as f

am il ym em b ers thatcont i nue t o l i ve s afe l yi n I ndones i a pr ovi des s ubs t ant i al s uppor tforthe B I A ’ s fi ndi ng thathe has notes t abl i s hed a c l earpr obabi l i tyof per s ecut i on on r eturni ng t o I ndones i a.5

B ecause ther e i s subst anti al evidence sup po rt i ng the B IA ’s determ i nati on , w e m ust u p h o l d i t s ru l i n g . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we wi l l d e n yS u t a r d j i ’ s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w.