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 3-13-2008 

# K wee 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 . 06-3937

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_2008

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 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 " K we e v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1448. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1448NOT 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- 3937 N o. 06- 4936

____________ LI ON G H AY KW EE, P et i t i oner

v. AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L US A, R es pondent

____________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew fr om an O rd e r o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B oar d N o. A 79- 735- 056) 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 ar ch 6, 2008 B e f o re : B A R R Y , J O R D A N a n d H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: M ar ch 13, 2008)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________2

H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge . In th ese co n so li d ated ap p ea ls, L ion g H ayK w ee p eti ti o n s fo r rev iew o f: (1) a B o ard o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (B IA ) o rd e r d e n y in g h is a p p lica tio n f o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l; an d (2) a B IA o rde r de n y ing h is m o ti o n to rec o n side r. I. K w ee i s a ci t i zen of

I ndones i a and a n ethni c C hi nes e C athol i c. H e ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es as a noni m m i gr antvi s i t orand r emai ned her e af t erhi s vi s a expi r ed. A ft er he w as s erved w i t h a N ot i ce t o A ppear , K w ee a dm i t t ed r emovabi l i t yand r eques t ed r el i ef i n t he form of as y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on A g ains t T o rtu re (C A T ). F o ll o w ing a h ea ri n g , Im m igrati o n Ju d g e (IJ) C h arles M . H o n ey m an d en ied K w ee ’s re q u e sts f

o r re lief , fin d in g h is a sy lu m c laim tim e -b a rre d a n d th a t K w e e h a d f a iled to demonstr at e ei t herpas tper s ecut i on ora w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on on acc ountof hi s C hi nes e ethni ci t yorhi s C athol i c fa i t h. T he I J al s o found thatK w ee f ai l ed t o e s t a b l i s h e l i g i b i l i t yf

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

r e mov a l o rp r o t e c t i o n u n d e rth e CA T. O n appea l , t he B I A adopt ed and a ffi r m ed the fi ndi ngs of the I J i n a percur i am opi ni on. K w ee then fi l ed a mot i on t o r econs i deri n w hi ch he s ubm i t t ed the D epart m entof St at e’ s r ece nt l y - r el eas ed 2005 countr ycondi t i on r epor t s forI ndones i a. T he B I A deni ed t he mot i on and K w ee t i m el yappea l ed the B I A ’ s deni al of hi s appl i cat i on forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval and i t s deni al of hi s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on.3 II. W her e, as her e, t he B I A adopt s and af fi r m s the fi ndi ngs of the I J w i t h addi t i onal c o m m e n t, w e re v ie w th e d e c is io n s o f b o th th e IJ a n d th e B IA . He C h u n C h e n v . A sh c ro ft , 376 F. 3d 215, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . W e mustuphol d fi ndi ngs of fa ct“unl es s any r e a s o n a b l e a d

j u d i c a t o rwo u l d b e c o mp e l l e d t o c o n c l u d e t o th e c o n t r a r y . ” 8 U. S . C. § 1252( b) ( 4) ( B ) . W e r evi ew t he B I A ’ s deni al of a mot i on t o r econs i derunderan abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d, underw hi ch the deni al i s r ever s ed onl yi f arbi t r ary , i r r at i onal , or c o n tr a ry to la w . I

N S v. A budu , 4 8 5 U . S . 9 4 , 1 1 0 (19 8 8 ). III . W e fi r s tcons i derK w ee’ s w i t hhol di ng of r emoval cl ai m , w hi ch r equi r es an appl i cantt o demonstr at e a “ cl earpr obabi l i t y ” that , upon r emoval , hi s l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened on a ccountof hi s r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , pol i t i cal opi ni on, or m e m b e rs h ip in a p a rt ic u la r s o c ia l g ro u p . IN S v . S tev ic , 4 6 7 U .S . 4 0 7 , 4 2 9 -3 0 (1 9 8 4 ). K w ee argues t hat he faces a cl ear pr ob abil i t yof f utur e persecut i on becau se there exis t s a

“ p a tte rn o r p ra c tic e o f

p e rs e c u tio n ” o f

s im ila rl ys itu a te d in d iv id u a ls in In d o n e s ia . 8 C . F. R . § 1208. 16( b) ( 2) ( i ) . I n s uppor tof thi s cl ai m , K w ee s ubm i t t ed the D epart m entof St at e’ s 2003 and 2004 countr ycondi t i on r epor t s forI ndones i a. I n d e n y i n g Kwe e ’ s “ p a t t e r n o rp r a c t i c e ” c l a i m, th e I J i n i t i a l l yn o t e d th a twe r ej ect ed an a nal ogous cl ai m bas ed upon the D epart m entof St at e’ s 1999 countr ycondi t i on r epor t s forI ndones i a i n L ie v . A sh c ro ft , 396 F. 3d 530 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . T he I J then foundForexampl e, t he 2004 r eportnot es that“[i ] ns t ance s of di s cr i m i nat i on and 1 h a ra s s m e n t o f

e th n ic C h in e s e In d o n e s ia n s d e c lin e d c o m p a re d w ith p re v io u s y e a rs .” M or eover , t he 2002 r epor ti ndi cat es thatat t acks on chur ches “w er e much l es s fr equent t han i n pr evi ous y ear s ” and thati n ar eas of hi s t or i cal t ens i on betw een M us l i m s and C hr i s t i ans “[t ] he numberof s er i ous abus es . . . decl i ned s harpl yfr om the pr evi ous y ear . ” 4 t hatt her e w as not hi ng i n t he more r ece ntr eport s s ubm i t t ed byK w ee thatw oul d change t hatconcl us i on. I ndeed, w e not e thatthe 2003 and 2004 r epor t s s ugges tthatthe t r eatm entof C hi nes e C hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a has i m pr oved s i nce 1999. 1 A lth o u g h K w e e a lso a rg u e s th a t an ti-C h in e se a n d a n ti-C h ristia n v io len c e in I ndones i a i s cy cl i cal i n natur e — s ugges t i ng that“vi ol ence and l ar ge- s cal e r i ot s have occurr ed eve r ydeca de s i nce the 1940' s ” and that“i ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthatanother expl os i on w i l l occurs oon” — s uch s pecul at i ve ar gum ent s cannotform the bas i s of a v i a b l e p a t t e r n o rp r a c t i c e c l a i m. A s s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the I J ’ s fi ndi ng thatK w ee di d notes t abl i s h a “p att ern o r pra cti ce o f p erse cu ti o n , ” w e c o n clud e tha t th e IJ d id n o t err i n d en y ing K w ee ’s a p p lica tio n f

o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. III . A ft ert he B I A aff

i r m ed the I J ’ s deni al of hi s r eques t s forr el i ef, K w ee f i l ed a m ot i on forr econs i der at i on upon r el eas e of the 2005 countr ycondi t i on r epor t s . B utK w ee s t at es i n hi s m ot i on t hatt he 2005 r epor t s “pr ovi de an a l m os ti dent i cal as s es s m entas t he 2004 r epor t s . ” B eca us e the 2005 r epor t s s hed no new l i ghton K w ee’ s patt ern orpr act i ce claim , the B IA d id n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n in d en y ing K w ee ’s m o ti o n to rec o n side r.5

F o rt h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yKwe e ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.