2005 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 5-25-2005 

# S un ar jo 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 . 04-2660

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_2005

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 2005 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 " S un arj o v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1133. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/11331 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: 04- 2660 F RE DY S UNAR J O, Pet i t i oner v. *A L B E R T O G O N Z A L E S, A tt orneyG ener al

of the U nit ed S t at es, R es pondent * (A m en d ed p u rsua n t t o F . R . A . P . 4 3 © )) 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 ( N o. 79- 322- 815) Subm i t t ed pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay5, 2005 B efor e: M cK E E , SM I T H and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay25, 2005)

OP I NI ON M cK E E , C i r cui tJ udge. Fr edySunar

j o, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of I ndones i a, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a de ci s i on o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls a f f irm in g th e d e c isio n o f

a n Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e in w hi ch the I J deni ed hi s appl i cat i ons foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval and pr ot ect i onSunar j o has notchal l enged the I J ’ s deni al of hi s appl i cat i on forpr ot ect i on under 1 th e C A T . T h u s , h e h a s w a iv e d th a t is s u e in h is p e titio n f o r r e v ie w . S e e L ie v . A sh c ro ft , 3 9 6 F .3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 2 n .1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 2 u n d e r th e C o n v e n tio n A g a in st T o rtu re (“ C A T ” ). F o r th e re a so n s th a t f o llo w , w e w ill 1 d e n yth e p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w . I. T o es t abl i s h a cl ai m fora di s cr et i onarygr antof as y l um underthe I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ct( “I N A ”) , an al i en mustpr ove thathe/ s he i s a “r efuge e. ” Ez eagw una v. A sh c ro ft , 30 1 F . 3d 11 6, 12 5-136 (3d C i r. 20 02 ). “R efug ee” i s defi ned byst atute as : [A ]nyp erso n w h o is ou tsi d e a n yco u n tryo f su ch p erso n ’s n a tio n a lityo r, in th e c a se o f a p e rso n h a v in g n o n a tio n a lity , is o u tsid e o f

a n yc o u n tryin w h ich su c h p e rso n las t h a b itu a lly r es i ded, and w ho i s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o avai l hi m s el f or her s el f of the pr ot ect i on of thatcountr ybeca us e of per s ecut i on ora w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on on acc ount o f ra c e , re lig io n , n a tio n a lity, m em bers hi p i n a par t i cular s oci algr oup , orpol i t i cal opi ni on. 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) ( emphasi s added) . A n appl i cantforas y l um bear s the bur den o f e s ta b lis h in g p a s t p e rs e c u tio n o r 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 . 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 3 (a ); A b d ill e v . A sh c ro ft , 24 2 F . 3d 47 7, 48 2 (3d C i r. 20 01 ). T hu s, an ali en m ust es t abl i s h thatt he ac t i ons under l y i ng hi s /hercl ai m actual l yr i s e t o t he l evel of “per s ecut i on. ” S e e D isu v . A sh c ro ft , 3 3 8 F . 3 d 1 3 , 1 7 (1st C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (ap p li ca n t’ s exper i ence “mustr i s e above unpl eas antnes s , har as s m ent , and eve n bas i c s uffe r i ng”) ( i nt ernal quot at i on and ci t at i on om i t t ed) . T he cl ai m antm us tal s o es t abl i s h t hattheA n appl i cat i on foras y l um i s deemed t o al s o cons t i tut e an a ppl i cat i on for 2 w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l u n d e r I N A § 2 4 1 (b )( 3 )( A ), 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 (b )( 3 )( A ). See 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .3 (b ). 3 per s ecut i on w as comm i t t ed ei t herbythe governm entorbyfor ces thatthe governm ent w a s u n a b le , o r u n w illin g , to c o n tr o l. S e e G a o v . A sh c ro ft , 2 9 9 F . 3 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). A c laim a n t w h o d e m o n stra tes “ p a st p e rse c u tio n ” is p re su m e d to h a v e a w e llfounded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on, butthe governm entcan r ebutthatpr es um pt i on by s h o w in g b ya p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e th a t, in tera lia , the appl i cant ’ s fea ri s no lo n g e r w e ll-fo u n d e d . 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 3 (b )(1 ); se e Mu la n g a v . A sh c ro ft , 349 F. 3d 123, 1 3 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). T h e “ w e ll-fo u n d e d f

e a r o f p e rse c u tio n ” sta n d a rd in v o lv e s b o th a su b jec tiv e ly g e n u in e f

e a r o f p e rs e c u tio n a n d a n o b

je c tiv e ly re a s o n a b le p o s s ib ility o f p e rs e c u tio n . I

NS v. C ar doz a- Fons eca , 48 0 U . S . 42 1, 43 0-31 (19 87 ). T he subj ect i ve p rong requ i res a s h o w in g th a t th e f

e a r i s g e n u in e . Mi t e

y v . I NS , 6 7 F .3 d 1 3 2 5 , 1 3 3 1 (7 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). D eterm ination o f a n o b

jecti v elyrea so n ab le po ssibil ityreq u ir es a sce rt ainin g w h ethe r a r eas onabl e per s on i n t he al i en’ s ci r cumst ance s w oul d fea rper s ecut i on i f r eturned t o a g iv e n c o u n tr y . Ch a n gv . I NS , 1 1 9 F .3 d 1 0 5 5 , 1 0 6 5 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). W i thhol di ng of r emoval i s cl os el yr el at ed t o as y l um . H ow ever , unl i ke an a s y l um 2 cl ai m , the r el i ef i s notdi s cr et i onary . I N A § 243( h) , 8 U . S. C . § 1253( h) , pr ovi des thatt he

“ A tto rn e yG e n e ra l s hal lnotdepor torr eturn an al i en. . . t o a countr yi f the A t t orneyT he governm ents ugges t s t hatthe I J ’ s deci s i on i s the “f i nal agenc y 3 det erm i nat i on, ” and ther efor e i s t he dec i s i on underr evi ew . W e di s agr ee be caus e w e do notbel i eve thatt he B I A aff i r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on underi t s s um m aryaff i r m ance pr ocedur e, 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 1( a) ( 7) . R ather , w e bel i eve thatthe B I A conduct ed de novo re v iew o f

th a t d e c isio n . T h e B IA ’s d ism iss a l o f S u n a rjo ’s a p p e a l sta tes : “ W e have r evi ew ed the r ecord . . . and w e agr ee thatthe r es pondenthas fai l ed t o m eethi s bur den of es t abl i s hi ng pas tper s ecut i on ora w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on on acc ountof one of the s t atut or i l ypr ot ect ed gr ounds , orthati ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthathe w i l l be p e rs e c u te d o r s u b

je c te d to to rt u re u p o n h is re tu rn to In d o n e s ia .” (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). 4 G en era l determ ines that su ch ali en ’s l ife o r free d o m w o u ld b e thre aten ed in su ch co u n try on 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, or pol i t i cal opi ni on . ” (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). T o e sta b lish e lig ib ili tyf o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l, the al i en mustes t abl i s h bya “c l earpr obabi l i t y ” thati ti s “more l i kel ythan not ” that h e /s h e w o u ld b e s u b

je c t to p e rs e c u tio n if

re tu rn e d . IN

S v . S tev ic , 467 U . S. 407, 429- 30 (1 9 8 7 ). T h e “ c lea r p ro b a b ili ty ” sta n d a rd is a m o re rig o ro u s s tan d a rd th a n th e “ w e llf o u n d e d f e a r” s ta n d a rd f

o r a s y lu m . Janus i ak , 9 4 7 F .3 d a t 4 7 . T h u s, if a n a lien f

a ils to es t abl i s h the w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on r equi r ed foras y l um , he/ s he ca n not e s ta b lis h th e c le a r p ro b a b ility o f p e rs e c u tio n re q u ir e d f

o r w ith h o ld in g re m o v a l. Id . II. 

### Since the BIA con du ct ed a de no vo r e vi e w of the r e c or d, we ar e r e vi e wi ng the B IA ’s d ecisio n , an dn o t th e ru lin g o f th e IJ. A b d

u la i v. A sh cro

ft , 239 F. 3d 542, 548- 49 3 

### (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 1 ). We su stainth e B IA ’s d etermin atio nif th ere is sub stantial ev id en ce in th e reco rdto sup p o rt it. A b dille v. A sh cro ft , 242 F.3d47 7, 48 3 (3dCir. 20 01 ). “S ub stantial ev id en ce is m o re th ana m ere scintilla an dis su chrelev ant ev id en ce as aT h e IJ a lso f o u n d that S u n arjo f

il ed a f ri v o lou s asy lum ap p li ca ti o n . T h e B IA 4 d is a g re e d a n d d e c lin e d to a f f ir m th e IJ ’s h o ld in g o n th a t p o in t.

5 

### re as on ablemind m ight ac cept as adequateto supp ort a conclusi on .” Se nat

hirajah v . I

NS, 157 F. 3d 210, 216 ( 3d Ci r . 1998) ( quot at i on omi tt e d) . Unde r thi s de fe r e nt i a ls t andar d, “the BIA's find ing m

ust be uph el d unles s the evidence not only supp orts a c on trar

y conclusi on , but com

pels it .” A b dille , 242 F. 3d at 483- 84 ( c i t i ng I

NS v . Eli as - Zac ari as , 5 0 2 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 & n . 1 (1 9 9 2 )). III . T he I J found thatSunar j o l acke d cr edi bi l i t yand thathi s t es t i m ony , even i f true, fai l ed t o es t abl i s h el i gi bi l i t yforr el i ef. H ow ever , the B I A ’ s deci s i on w as notbas ed on 4 the IJ’s a d v erse cre d ibil ityd eterm ination . T h u s, w e m u st assu m e the tru th o f S u n arjo’s f a c tu a l c o n te n tio n s . S e e Na v a s v . I NS , 2 1 7 F .3 d 6 4 6 , 6 5 2 n .3 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). N onethel es s , even a s s um i ng t he truth of thos e fa ctual cont ent i ons , w e fi nd thats ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s t he B I A ’ s det erm i nat i on thatSunar j o fai l ed t o m eethi s bur den of e s ta b lis h in g e lig ib ility f o r a s y lu m o r w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l. I n hi s appl i cat i on foras y l um and w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , Sunar j o as s ert ed thathe w as an ethni c C hi nes e C hr i s t i an I ndones i an and a s s ert ed thathe w oul d be “hurtorki l l ed” i f r etur ned t o I ndones i a. H e bas ed thatconcl us i on upon t hr ee i nci dent s i n w hi ch he cl ai m s he w as per s ecut ed on ac countof hi s r el i gi on orethni ci t y . Fi r s t , he as s ert ed thathe w as tr eat ed rudel ybyparki ng att endant s ats om e uns peci fi ed t i m e. Second, he s ai d t hat“‘ Per s ecut i on’ i s an extr eme conceptthatdoes noti ncl ude eve r ys or tof tr eatm ent 5 ours oci etyr egar ds as offe ns i ve. ” Fa t i n v . I NS , 1 2 F . 3 d 1 2 3 3 , 1 2 4 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ); a c c o r d Fis h e rv . I

NS , 79 F. 3d 955, 961 ( 9th C i r . 1996) ( en banc ) ( “Per s ecut i on i s an extr eme concept , w hi ch or di nar i l ydoes noti ncl ude “[ d] i s cr i m i nat i on on t he bas i s of r ace orr el i gi on, as m or al l yr epr ehens i bl e as i tm aybe. ” ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( i nt ernal q u o tatio n o m itt e d ); s e e a l s o Ne l s o n v . I NS , 232 F. 3d 258, 263 ( 1s tC i r . 2000) ( “To qual i fy as per s ecut i on, a per s on’ s exper i ence m us tr i s e above unpl eas antnes s , har as s m entoreven b asic su ff

ering . ”). 6 he had t o br i be governm entoffi ci al s i n or dert o obt ai n governm ents ervi ces . T hi r d, he c la im e d th a t u n id e n tif

ie d in d iv id u a ls b o m b e d h is c h u rc h w h ile h e w a s a tte n d in g s e rv ic e s . T he B I A corr ect l yconcl uded thatt hes e i nci dent s do nots how pas tper s ecut i on on 5 a c c o u n t o f

a p ro te c te d g ro u n d e v e n if th e yo c c u rr e d a s S u n a rj o c la im s . H i s cl ai m t hathe w as t r eat ed rudel ybyparki ng l otatt endant s w ho char ged hi m an i ncr eas ed fe e i nvol ved no thr eatorphy s i cal harm . Si m i l ar l y , hi s cl ai m thathe w as re q u ir e d to b ri b e g o v e rn m e n t o f f ic ia ls d id n o t in v o lv e a n yth re a t o r p h y s ic a l h a rm . A l though he des cr i bed the br i bes as di s cr i m i nat i on, he ac know l edged thatbr i beryw as c o m m o n p la c e in In d o n e s ia a n d w a s re q u ir e d o f m o s t I n d o n e s ia n s re g a rd le s s o f e th n ic ity. F inally , h e f

ail ed to es tablish e ith er the iden ti tyo f th e a ll eg ed b o m b ers o r th at th eyw ere mo t i v a t e d b ya n yg r o u n d t h a ti s p r o t e c t e d u n d e rth e I NA. S i n c e S u n a r

j o f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h p a s tp e r s e c u t i o n , h e d o e s n o tb e n e f i tf r o m a p re s u m p tio n o f

f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n . S e e A b d u lra h m a n v . A sh c ro ft , 330 F. 3d 587, 592 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). In a d d iti o n , alth o u g h h e c laim e d to f e a r re lig io u s a n d e th n ic p e rse c u tio n in In d o n e sia , h e tes tifie d th a t h e re m a in e d in In d o n e sia f o r six m o n th s w ith o u t an yd if f icu ltyW e n o te th a t S u n a rjo ’s a tto rn e ya lso re p re se n ted X iu H u a Z h e n g in a se p a ra te 6 im m igrati o n m att er tha t cam e b ef o re this C o u rto n M ay4 , 2 0 0 5 (C ase N o . 0 4 -27 1 0 ). It a p p e a rs th a t P e tit io n e r’s a tto rn e ysu b m itt e d th e id e n tica l 5 -p a g e b rie f in b o th c a se s, w ith the exc ept i on of cha ngi ng t he pet i t i oner s ’ names. T he tw o cas es had di s s i m i l arfac t p a tte rs , a n d n e ith e r b ri e f p ro p e rl ya d d re s s e s th e is s u e s in th e in d iv id u a l c a s e s . N o tw ith s ta n d in g th e s e d e f ic ie n c ie s , w e w e re a b le to d e te rm in e th a t th is c a s e la c k e d m e ri t. N everthel es s , w e hope thats uch a pr act i ce w i l l notbe r epea t ed bycouns el i n t he futur e. 7 fo ll o w ing the a ll eg ed b o m b ing o f h is ch u rch . M o reo v er, he test ifi ed that h is m o ther, br otherand tw o s i s t er s , al l ethni c C hi nes e C hr i s t i ans , r emai n i n I ndones i a w i t hout e n c o u n ter in g a n yd if

f icu lti e s. In f

a c t, S u n a rjo tes tifie d th a t h is f a m ilyh a s p ro sp e re d in I ndones i a. H i s br ot herow ns an el ectr oni cs company , empl oy i ng appr oxi m at el yt en w or ker s . H i s col l ege- t r ai ned s i s t er s r ece i ved thei rgovernm ent - i s s ued t eac hi ng c e rt if ic a te s a n d a re e m p lo y e d a s te a c h e rs in In d o n e s ia . I V. F o r all o f th e a b o v e re aso n s, w e f ind that su b stan ti al ev iden ce su p p o rt s the B IA ’s det erm i nat i on t hatSunar j o di d notm eethi s bur den of de m ons t r at i ng el i gi bi l i t yforas y l um a n d wi th h o l d i n g o f

r e mo v a l . We wi l l , th e r e f o r e , d e n yh i s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. 6