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 3-25-2008 

# S i ah a an v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 06-3819

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " S i ah a a n v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1392. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1392

### Th e Hon orable JosephE. Ir enas , Senior Dis tric t Jud ge of the Unite d S tate s * 

### Di s tr i c t Court for the Di s tr i c t

of Ne w J e r s e y , s i tt i ng by de s i gnat i on. 1 NO T P RE CE DENT I AL UN I TE D S TA TE S C OU RT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT No: 06- 3819 JUL I ET TASI AH AAN; J OHNS ONMA RL UL AN ; ALI CI A LUBI S; AGATHA LUBI S, Peti ti on er s v. AT TO RN EYGENE RA L O F T HE UN I TE D S TA TE S

Peti ti onfo r Revie w o f an O rder o f th e B o ardo f

Imm ig ratio nAp p eals ( Age nc y Fi l e Nos . A96- 264- 077, 78, 79, 80) Subm itte d p ursuant t o T hird Circ uit LAR34 .1(a )

Fe br uar y 4, 2008 B ef o re: M cK E E an dA M B R O , C ircu it Ju d g es, and I RENAS, Di s tr i c t

Judge * 

### ( Opi ni on fi l e d: Mar c h 25, 2008)

OP INI ON McKE E, Circ uit Jud ge. Jul i e tt aSi aha an, J ohns on Mar l ul an, Al i c i aLubi s and AgathaLubi s pe t i t i on for

### A lth o u g hth ere are multip le requ ests f o r relief , in asm u chas th ey

are all 1 

### d e r i v at i v e o f

Ju l i e tt aS i ah ann ’ s c l a i m, w e w i l lr e f e r o n l y t o Ju l i e tt a ’ s c l a i m. See 8 U. S. C. § 11 58 (B)( 3) (s po use andchil dren m ay be “grant ed the s am e s tatus a s the al ie n. . . “) . The part i e s s t ipul at e d t o the I Jt aki ng a dm i ni s tr at i ve not i c e of the U. S. 2 

### Departm ent of S tate ’s 20 03 Co un tr y Repo rt s on H um an Righ ts Prac ti ce s for Indo nesi a, the St at e De partm e nt ’ s 2004 I nt e rnat i ona lRe l i gi ous Fr e e dom Re port for I ndone s i a , and the Annua lRe port

of the Uni t e d St at e s Comm i s s i on on I nt e rnat i ona lRe l i gi ous Fr e e dom dat e d May

2004. 2 r e vi e w of an or de r

of the Boar d of I mm i gr at i on Appe a l s a ffi rm i ng the de c i s i on of the I mm i gr at i on Judge de nyi ng the i r a ppl i c at i on for

Si aha an for

a s yl um , wi thhol di ng of rem o v al an drelief

un d er th e C o n v en tio nA g ain st T o rture (“C A T ”), as w ell as Ju lietta Si aha an’ s de r i vat i ve a s yl um a ppl i c at i ons on be ha l f of J ohns on Mar l ul an and Al i c i aand Ag atha Lubi s . Fo r

the r e a s on s that

fo l l ow , we wi l lde ny

the pe t i t i onfo r

r e vi e w. 1 

### I. Be c aus e we wr i t e pr i m ar i l y for the part i e s , we ne e d not

r e c i t e the fa c t

ua lor p ro cedural b ack g ro un do f th is case ex cep t in so f

ar as is n ecessary

to o ur d iscu ssio n . Siahaan cla im ed she i s e li gible for re li ef because she i s a m em ber of the Batak ethn ic group andbeca

use s he is a Chris ti an. At her hearing b efore the IJshe i ntrodu ce d a ppr oxi m at e l y

s e ve nty- ni ne art i c l e s and r e port s i n s upport of he r c l a i m . The I Jfound 2 

### Si aha an wa s not

c r e di bl e . He a l s o found that the e vi de nc e di d not

e s t abl i s h c ountry- wi de pe r s e c ut i on of Bat ak Chr i s t i ans . Whi l e Si aha an’ s ba c kgr ound m at e r i a l s and var i ous co un try rep o rts sh o wsig n if

ican t v io len ce b etw eenC h ristian s an dM u slim s inS u law esia and the Mo lucc as , they

do no t s ho w v iole nce i n Jakarta (where s he is from ). Th e I J

### 3

c onc l ude d that

the onl y r e l i gi ous c onfl i c t

i n J akart ac onc e rne d the e s t abl i s hm e nt of church es w ith o ut m

un icip al p erm its an dth at th ere is n o ev id en ce th at su chrequ irem en ts ar e not a ppl i c abl e t o pl a c e s of wor s hip. He a l s o found that Si aha an di d not

pr oduc e any e vi de nc e that

Bat aks we r e t ar ge t e d for vi ol e nc e a l ong wi th e thni c Chi ne s e dur i ng the M ay 1 9 9 8 civ il rio ts, o r th at eth n ic B atak s are targ etedf o r v io len ce b asedo nth eir eth n icity . F in ally , th e IJ f o un dth at S iah aand idn o t p resen t su f f icien t ev id en ce to e s t abl i s h that

s he wi l lm or e l i ke l y

than not be t ort ur e d upon he r

r e t urn t o I ndone s i aor that the gove rnm e nt

woul d be c om

pl i c i t e ve n i f s uc h t ort

ur e we r e t o oc c ur . I n l i e u of re m ov al , the IJgrante d the peti ti on er s’ re qu es ts fo r volun tary depart ure. On a ppe a lt o the BI A, Si aha an ar gue d, for the fi r s t t i m e , that

the r e wa s apatt e rn or p ractice o f

p ersecu tio nag ain st B atakC h ristian s inIn d o n esia. Inano p in io nd atedJu ly 21 , 200 6, the BIA re vers ed the I J’ s finding that Siahaan w as no t c re dible, bu t i t a gree d with the I J’ s finding that

Siahaan f

ai le d to m ee t her

burden of

prov ing that s he was elig ib le f o r asylum , w ithh o ld in g an drelief un d er th e C A T . Th e BIA held that

ther e was no t a

patt er n o r pra ct ic e of p er se cuti onof Batak Chr i s t i ans by

the gove rnm e nt

of I ndone s i aor

for c e s the gove rnm e nt

wa s unabl e or unwi l l i ng t o c ontr ol . I t

e xpl a i ne d, “ I t

i s c l e ar that e thni c and r e l i gi ous t e ns i ons and violence do exis t, and in p arti cular, [S iahaan’s ] d ocum entary evidence conf

ir m s this, as d o th e C o un try

R ep o rts f ro m g o v ern m en t ag en cies,” b ut th e C o un try R ep o rts also indicate that

in genera l i nter -r el igious tole rance andcoop er at ion im prov ed in 20 04 . . . . ”

### 4

Ap p . 1 0 . T h e B IAalso co n clu d edth at w h ile “[ t] h e rep o rts o nrelig io u s f reed o m exp ress c onc e rn ove r

c ont i nui ng r e l i gi ous t e ns i on and vi ol e nc e , ” the y do not e s t abl i s h that

the gove rnm e nt

of I ndone s i aor

for c e s the gove rnm e nt

wa s unabl e or

unwi l l i ng t o c ontr ol en g ag edina p atterno r p ractice o f p ersecu tio no f

C h ristian s o r B atak s. Id . The BIA af f irm edth e IJ’s g ran t o f

v o lun tary

d ep arture. T h is p etitio nf o r rev iewf

o llo w ed . II. W h e re , as h e re , the B IA iss u e d a d e c isio n o n th e m e rits ra th e r th a n m e re ly s u m m a ri ly af

f ir m th e IJ , w e re v ie w th e B IA ' s d e c is io n , n o t th e IJ ’s . G a o v . A sh c ro ft, 299 F .3 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 1 (3 d C ir.2 0 0 2 ); A b d u la i v. A sh c ro ft, 2 3 9 F . 3 d 5 4 2 , 5 4 8 -49 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). W e mustuphol d t he B I A ' s fac t ual fi ndi ngs i f t heyar e “s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr obat i ve evi dence on t he r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e. ” I N S v. E l i as-Zaca ri as, 502 U . S. 478, 480 ( 1992) . W e s houl d fi nd s ubs t ant i al evi dence l acki ng o n lyw h e re th e e v id e n c e “ w a s s o c o m p e lli n g th a t n o re a so n a b le f a c tf in d e r c o u ld f

a il t o f in d th e a lie n e lig ib le 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

d. at483- 84; s ee al

s o 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )(4 )(B ); A b d ill e v . A sh c ro ft, 2 4 2 F . 3 d 4 7 7 , 4 8 3 -84 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). 

### III. T h e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l h a s d is c re tio n to g ra n t a s y lu m to a re m o v a b le a lie n . See 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (a ). H o w e v e r, th a t d isc re tio n c a n o n lyb e e x e rc ise d if th e a lien f

irst es t abl i s hes t hathe/ s he i s a “r efuge e. ” I d. A “refugee” i s: a n y p e r s o n w h o i s o u t s i d e a n y c o u n t r y o f s u c h p e r s o 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

### 5 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 t hatcount r ybeca us e of per s ecut i on ora w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on on acc ount of r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a par t i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on. 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) . T he as y l um appl i cantm us tpr es ents om e evi dence t hat re m o v a l w ill re su lt i n p e rse c u tio n “ o n a c c o u n t o f ” o n e o f th e f iv e sta tu to ryg ro u n d s in o r d e rt o e s t a b l i s h e l i g i b i l i t yf o ra s y l u m. A n appl i cantw ho offe r s cr edi bl e t es t i m onyr egar di ng pas tper s ecut i on i s pr es um ed to h a v e 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 . B e ris h a j v. A sh c ro

ft, 378 F. 3d 314, 3 2 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (cit ati o n o m it ted). T h e “ w ell -fo u n d fe ar o f p erse cu ti o n ” stan d ard in v o lv e s b o th a su b

jec tiv e lyg e n u in e f

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

jec tiv e lyre a so n a b le p o s s ib ility o f

p e rs e c u tio n . I

N S v. C ar doz a- Fons eca, 480 U . S. 421, 430- 31 ( 1987) . T he s u b je c tiv e p ro n g re q u ir e s 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 ev v . I N S, 67 F. 3d 1325, 1 3 3 1 (7th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). T h e o b jecti v elyrea so n ab le pro n g req 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 etur ned t o a g iv e n c o u n tr y . Zu b e d a v . A sh c ro ft, 3 3 3 F . 3 d 4 6 3 , 4 6 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (cit ati o n o m it ted). “To sat i s fyt he obj ect i ve pr ong, t he as y l um pet i t i onerm us ts how he ors he w oul d be i ndi vi dual l ys i ngl ed outforper s ecut i on ort hat‘ t her e i s a pat t er n orpr act i ce i n hi s orher count r y. . . of per s ecut i on of a gr oup of per s ons s i m i l ar l ys i t uat ed t o t he appl i canton acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a par t i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i calA n appl i cat i on foras y l um i s deemed att he s ame t i m e t o be an a ppl i cat i on for 3 w ith h o lding o f re m o v al. 8 C . F . R . § 1 2 0 8 . 3 (b). 

### S iah aanalso arg u es th at th e IJ d idn o t co n sid er all o f th e reco rdev id en ce in 4 

### de t e rm i ni ng whe the r

the r e wa s apatt e rn or

pr a c t i c e of pe r s e c ut i on a ga i ns t Bat aks and C h ristian s. H o w ev er, as n o ted , b ecau se th e B IAissu eda d ecisio no nth e m erits an dd id (co n tinu ed ...) 6 opi ni on. ’ ” Su kw an

pu t ra v. G on zal es, 4 3 4 F . 3 d 6 2 7 , 6 3 7 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( q u o t i n g 8 C. F . R. § 208. 13( b) ( 2) ( i i i ) ( A ) ) . A l t hough “pat t er n orpr act i ce, ” i s notdefi ned, w e have expl ai ned th a t “th e p e rse c u tio n o f th e g ro u p m u st b e sy ste m a tic, p e rv a siv e , o r o rg a n ize d ” to c o n s titu te a p a tte rn o r p ra c tic e . I d. ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . “I n addi t i on, as w i t h anycl ai m of p e rse c u tio n , the a c ts m u st b e c o m m itt e d b yth e g o v e rn m e n t o r f o rc e s th e g o v e rn m e n t is ei t herunabl e orunw i l l i ng t o cont r ol . ” I d. (cit ati o n o m it ted). W i t hhol di ng of r emoval i s m andat or yonce “ t he A t t or neyG ener al det er m i nes t hat [ t h e ] a l i e n 's l i f

e o rf r e e d o m w o u l d b e t h r e a t e n e d ” b e c a u s e o f a p r o t e c t e d t r a i to ra c t i v i t y. 3 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 (b )(3 )(A ). A n a lien m u st e sta b lish a “ c lea r p ro b a b ili ty ,” i.e ., th a t itis m o re lik e ly th a n n o t, th a t h e /s h e w o u ld s u f f e r p e rs e c u tio n . See I

N S v. St evi c, 46 7 U. S. 407, 429- 30 ( 1984) . B eca us e t hi s s t andar d i s hi ghert han t hatgover ni ng el i gi bi l i t yfor as y l um , an al i en w ho fai l s t o qual i fyforas y l um i s nece s s ar i l yi nel i gi bl e forw i t hhol di ng o f re m o v a l. Zubeda, 333 F. 3d at469- 70. I V. S i a h a a n a r g u e s t h a tt h e B I A ’ s r u l i n g i s n o ts u p p o r t e d b ys u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . We d is a g re e . W e di s agr ee.

4 ,5

### ( . . . c ont i nue d) 4 

### n o t sim p ly af f irm th e IJ, w e rev iewth e B IA ’s d ecisio n , n o t th e IJ’s. Si aha an c l a i m s , wi thout

any l e ga lor fa c t ua lar gum e nt , that

the I Je rr e d i n de nyi ng 5 

### he r c l a i m for r e l i e f unde r

the CAT. Howe ve r , a s not e d above , we ar e r e vi e wi ng the BIA’s dec is ion. Mo re ov er , s he m akes her CAT cl ai m in a per fu nctory

m anner. A cco rd in g ly , sh e h as w aiv edth is issu e. See Kost v . Kozakie wicz , 1 F. 3d 176, 182 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 9 3 ) (“[ c] asu al m entio no f anissu e ina b rief

is curso ry

treatm en t in su f

f icien t to p reserv e th e issu e o nap p eal.”). We ad d , h o w ev er, th at th e reco rdh ere d o es n o t sup p o rt a C A T claim

inany ev en t. 7 T h e re c o rd c o n tain s n o p ro b a tiv e e v id e n c e o f th e p e rse c u tio n o f

B a tak s in I ndones i a. I ndeed, Si ahaa n’ s couns el admi t t ed t hathercl ai m s w er e bas ed pr i m ar i l yon herr el i gi on r at hert han heret hni ci t y . T he onl yevi dence s he i nt r oduced c oncerni ng p o ssible p erse cu ti o n o f B atak s is a 1 9 9 0 arti cle d iscu ssing the In d o n esian g o v ern m en t’ s canc el l at i on of t he C ongr es s of B at ak Pr ot es t antC hur ches . T he ar t i cl e not ed t hatt he pr i m ar yr eas on t he governm entcanc el l ed t he C ongr es s w as beca us e chur ch l eade r s had in te rv e n e d o n b e h a lf

o f v illa g e rs a f

f e c te d b ya p u lp f

a c to ry. A .R . 3 5 6 . H ercl ai m of a pa t t er n orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on of C hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a fa r es no bet t er . I n L ie v . A sh c ro

ft , 396 F. 3d 530 ( 3d C i r . 2005) , i n deny i ng C hi nes e C hr i s t i an pet i t i oner s ’ appl i cat i ons foras y l um and w i t hhol di ng, w e w r ot e:

Pet i t i oner s ar gue, w i t h s om e for ce, t hatant i - C hi nes e vi ol ence per s i s t s , . . . N ever t hel es s , s uch vi ol ence does notappea rt o be s u f f ic ie n tly w id e s p re a d a s to c o n s titu te a p a tte rn o r p ra c tic e . .

. . M o re o v e r, th is v io len c e se e m s to h a v e b e e n p rim a rily w r oughtbyfel l ow ci t i zens and nott he r es ul tof governm ent al act i on oracqui es cenc e. Id . at537- 538. Si ahaa n i s nota C hi nes e C hr i s t i an, and t he document ar yevi dence her e, asT he R epor tal s o not ed t hatt he “gove r nm entt r i ed and c onvi ct ed atl eas t79 t er r or 6 s us pect s and ac compl i ces i nvol ved i n r el i gi ous l ym ot i vat ed at t acks ” dur i ng t he per i od cover ed byt he R epor t . O ne of thos e arr es t s w as of A bdul J abar , w ho w as convi ct ed of i nvol vement i n t w o chur ch bombi ngs on C hr i s t m as E ve i n 2003. 

### 8 i n L ie , s t at es t hati nt er - r el i gi ous t ol er ance and coope r at i on i m pr oved i n 2004. T he In ter n a tio n a l R e lig io u s F re e d o m f o r In d o n e sia in 2 0 0 4 sta ted th a t “n o tab le a d v a n c e s in in ter re lig io u s to ler a n c e a n d c o o p e ra tio n o c c u rre d d u rin g th e p e rio d c o v e re d b yth is r epor t . ” The A nnual R epor tof t he U . S. C om m i s s i on on I nt er nat i onal R el i gi ous Fr eedom not ed t hatal t hough t he governm enthas been una bl e t o hal tal l r el i gi ous l y - r el at ed vi ol ence , t he s i t uat i on has i m pr oved s i nce 2001. S i ahaan cl ai m s t hat the g ov ernm ent i s com pli ci ti n v i olence againstC hri st i ans. H ow ever , t he B I A ’ s fi ndi ng t o t he contr ar yi s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . T he R el i gi ous Fr eedom R epor ts t at es t hatt he governm ent“cr acke d dow n on t er r or i s t s and otherextr em i st s w ho carr i ed o ut at t acks i n the nam e of rel i gion. . . . ” T he R epo rtal so 6 not ed t hatt he governm entpr os ecut ed a numberof ot her s i m pl i cat ed i n t he C hr i s t m as E ve chur ch- bom bi ngs . I n fac t , T he H um an R i ght s W at ch R epor tt hatSi ahaa n pr ovi ded s t at ed t he governm ent ’ s cr ackdow n on r el i gi ous vi ol ence has caus ed s om e M us l i m s t o bel i eve t he g ov ernm ent i s si ding w i t h C hri st i ans. T he ar t i cl es Si ahaa n i nt r oduced a l s o s how how t he governm entat t empt ed t o s t op vi ol ence agai ns tC hr i s t i ans and ot her s . B yw ayof exa m pl es , an ar t i cl e i n t he C hr i s t i an Postr epor t ed t hati n ear l y2004, uni dent i fi ed as s ai l ant s at t acke d t w o Pr ot es t antC hur ches

### 9

i n Pal u, C ent r al Sul aw es i – an i s l and fa rfr om J akar t a. T he governm entl at erdi s m i s s ed t he pol i ce c hi ef f

ornegl i gence i n notfol l ow i ng a di r ect i ve t o boos tpol i ce pr ot ect i on at pl ace s of w or s hi p ahea d of t he C hr i s t m as and N ew Y earper i od. A not herpr ovi nci al pol i ce c hi ef or der ed t hatal l chur ches be guar ded byt w o uni for m ed and tw o pl ai ncl ot hes pol i cemen. T he Pr es i dentof I ndones i a or der ed s ecur i t yt i ght ened i n m aj orci t i es s uch as J akar t a. M or eover , M us l i m I ndones i ans ar e nota uni fi ed, fundament al i s tfor ce. T he R el i gi ous Fr eedom R epor ts t at ed t hat“[i ] n gener al , I s l am i n [I ndones i a] r emai ned over w hel m i ngl yt ol er ant , w i t h a pl ur al i s t i c out l ook. ” I tnot ed t hat“[t ] en per centorfew er o f th e c o u n tr y ’s M u s lim s a d v o c a te c re a tin g a n Is la m ic s ta te . . . .” An o t h e ra r t i c l e S i a h a a n i n t r o d u c e d s t a t e d t h a te f f o r t s t o e x t e n d s h a r i a [ I s l a mi c l a w] to th e e n tire c o u n try[ w e re ] o p p o se d e v e n b yth e lea d e rs o f th e lea d in g Isla m ic o rg a n iz a tio n s . I n s um , s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s t he B I A ’ s fi ndi ng t hatt her e i s no pat t er n or pr act i ce of

per s ecut i on of C hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a. V. F o ra l l o f

t h e a b o v e r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yS i a h a a n ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.