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 7-12-2007 

# S ek eon 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 . 06-2681

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 " S e ke on v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 779. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/779NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 06- 2681

VE RN A J AM E S S E KE ON, Pet i t i oner

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

Pet i t i on forR evi ew of the O r der o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A 96- 203- 444) Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on . D on al d V . F erl i se
Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y9, 2007 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , H A R D I M A N , and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: J ul y12, 2007 )

_______ OP I NI ONT h e B I A aff i r m ed the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s gr antof 1 S e k e o n ’s a p p lic a tio n f

o r v o lu n ta ry d e p a rt u re . Se k eo n fai l ed t o fi l e hi s appl i cat i on foras y l um “w i thi n 1 2 y e a r a f te r t h e d a te o f

[ h is ] a rr iv a l in th e U n ite d S ta te s .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (a )(2 )(B ). S e k e o n c o n c e d e d th a t h is a p p li cat i on w as not t im e ly fil ed an d the IJ a p p rop ri a te ly li m it ed h is de cisi o n to S ek eo n ’s cl ai m s forw i thhol di ng of re m oval under the IN A and r el i ef unde r th e CA T. 2 SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. V erna J ames Seke on 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 ”) aff

i r m i ng the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s deni al of hi s appl i cat i on for w i thhol di ng of r emoval underthe I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ct( “I N A ”) and r el i ef underthe U ni t ed N at i ons C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . Forthe r eas ons that 1 f o l l o w, we wi l l d e n yS e k e o n ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. I. Sekeon i s a mal e nat i ve and c i t i zen of I ndones i a. H e ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es on Sept ember21, 2001 as a noni m m i gr antvi s i t orw i th author i zat i on t o r emai n unt i l M ar ch 20, 2002. O n A pr i l 19, 2003, he r ece i ved a not i ce t o appea rand w as char ged w i th bei ng su b jec t to re m o v a l f

o r re m a in in g in th e U n ited S tate s b e y o n d h is a d m iss io n p e rio d in vi ol at i on of s ect i on 237( a) ( 1) ( B ) of the I N A . I n Sept ember2003, Sekeon fi l ed an appl i cat i on foras y l um . O n February22, 2005, Sekeon appe ar ed bef or e the I m m i gr at i on 2 J udge ( “I J ”) , as s ert i ng thathe w as ent i t l ed t o w i thhol di ng of r emoval underthe I N A and re lief u n d e r th e C A T . T h e IJ d e n ied th e se a p p lica tio n s. S e k e o n th e re a f ter tim e lyW e re v iew d ir ec tl ythe IJ’s d ec isi o n b ec au se th e B IA 3 ado pted the rul i ng of the IJ w i tho ut fu rther i nd epen den tanaly si s. G a o v . A s h c ro f

t, 2 9 9 F .3 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ).

3 appea l ed the I J ’ s deci s i on t o t he B I A , w hi ch s um m ar i l yaff i r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on. W e 3 h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w th is p e titio n p u rs u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 1 ). II. T h is c o u rt re v iew s th e B IA ’s f a c tu a l f in d in g th a t an a lien h a s f a iled to d e m o n stra te el i gibi l i tyfor r el i ef from rem ov al un der the “sub st anti al evidence” tes t . IN S v. E l i asZ aca r i as , 502 U . S. 478, 480 ( 1992) . W e w i l l r ever s e onl yi f no r eas onabl e fa ct - fi nder c o u ld h a v e f

a ile d to f in d th e p a s t p e rs e c u tio n n e c e s s a ry to s u s ta in th e p e titio n e r’ s b u rd e n . See 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ( B ) ; E l i as - Z aca r i as , 502 U . S. at481 n. 1 ( r ever s al perm i t t ed o n lyw h ere the re co rd e v iden ce “c o m p els” a rea so n ab le fa ctfind er to rea ch a c o n tr ary d e te rm in a tio n ). III . Sekeon cont ends thatthe I J ’ s concl us i on thathe di d nots uffe rpas tper s ecut i on and has no w el l - founded f

earof futur e pr os ecut i on w as nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence o n th e re c o rd a s a w h o le. S e k e o n tes tifie d th a t as a c h ild in In d o n e sia , M u slim s w o u ld s pi ton hi m and ca l l hi m “unw or thy ” forpr act i ci ng hi s C hr i s t i an fa i th. Sekeon t es t i fi ed thatM us l i m s w oul d di s turb r el i gi ous s ervi ces i n w hi ch he w as part i ci pat i ng, i ncl udi ng throw i ng st on es atthe ch urch, and that pol i ce i nterven t i on w as unsuc cessful . H e al so t es t i fi ed thatther e w er e r i ot s i n 1998 thatdes tr oy ed part s of the country , buthe conc eded4

th a t h e w a s n o t d ir e c tly a f f e c te d b yth e s e in c id e n ts . T o b e e l i g i b l e f

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

r e mo v a l u n d e rS e c t i o n 2 4 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( A) o f th e I NA, 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 (b )(3 )(A ), th e a p p lica n t m u st d e m o n stra te th a t h is “ life o r f re e d o m w o u ld b e th r e a t e n e d i n [ th e c o u n tr y o f r e m o v a l ] b e c a u s e o f

th e a l i e n ’ s r a c e , r e l i g i o n , n a t i o n a l 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. ” To qual i fyforr el i ef unde r the C A T , the appl i cantm us tdemonstr at e thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthathe w oul d be t or tur ed i f r emoved. 8 C . F. R . § 208. 16( c) ( 2) . C l ai m s forw i thhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef unde rthe C A T r equi r e a s i gni fi cant l yhi gherbur den of pr oof than a c l ai m for as y l um . See, e. g. , C hen v. A s hcr oft , 376 F. 3d 215, 223 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( “A n al i en w ho f a ils to e sta b lish th a t h e o r sh e h a s a w e ll-fo u n d e d f e a r o f p e rse c u tio n , so a s to b e e lig ib le fora gr antof as y l um , nece s s ar i l yw i l l fai l t o es t abl i s h the r i ghtt o w i thhol di ng of r emoval . ”) ; W ang v. A s hcr oft , 368 F. 3d 347, 349 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( “[T] he s t andar d for in v o c a tio n o f

th e C A T is m o re s tr in g e n t th a n th e s ta n d a rd f o r g ra n tin g a s y lu m .” ). A ft ercons i der i ng Sekeon’ s t es t i m ony , the I J concl uded thatal though Sekeon had “bee n hones tand forthr i ghti n hi s pr es ent at i on, ” he ha d not“pr es ent ed anyevi dence t hat h e w o u ld b e p erse cu ted if h e is return ed to h is co u n tryfo r on e o f th e f ive s tatu tory g ro u n d s f

o r a g ra n t o f

re lie f.” A p p . a t 4 0 . T h e IJ reli ed o n this co u rt ’s de cisi o n in L ie v. A sh cro ft, 3 9 6 F . 3 d 5 3 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ), in w h ich w e e x p lain e d th a t p e rse c u tio n is lim ited to “ th re a ts to life , co n f in e m e n t, t or tur e, and ec onom i c r es tr i ct i ons s o s ever e thattheycons t i tut e a thr eatt o l i fe orf

re e d o m .” Id . at 5 3 6 (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s a n d c itatio n o m itt e d ). T o e sta b lish a w e llfounded f

earof per s ecut i on, an appl i cantm us tdemonstr at e thr ough cr edi bl e t es t i m ony that h is fea r i s g en u ine a n d that, o b jecti v ely , “a rea so n ab le pe rson in the ali 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. ” I d. ( i nt ernal q u o t a t i o n ma r k s a n d c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d ) . T h e I J c o n c l u d e d th a tS e k e o n h a d f a i l e d t o s h o w: (1 ) a p a ttern o r p ra c tice o f p a st p e rse c u tio n ; (2 ) th a t In d o n e sia p e rse c u tes C h ristia n s o r is u n w ill in g o r u n a b le to p ro tec t C h ristia n s f ro m h a rm in In d o n e sia ; an d (3 ) th a t h e w o u ld b e to rt u re d if

h e is re tu rn e d to In d o n e s ia . G i ven ourhi ghl ydefe r ent i al s t andar d of r evi ew , w e s ee no r eas on t o di s turb the fi ndi ngs of the I J , as theyw er 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. ” El i as - Z aca r i as , 502 U . S. at481 ( quot i ng 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 5 (a )(4 )), a n d w e a re n o t p e rsu a d e d in th is c a se th a t a “ re a so n a b le a d ju d ic a to r w o u ld b e c o m p e lle d to c o n c lu d e to th e c o n tr a ry.” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )( 4 )( B ). I V. W e conc l ude thatthe I J ’ s deci s i on thatSekeon di d nots uffe rpas tper s ecut i on and w oul d notbe s ubj ectt o t or tur e upon r eturn t o I ndones i a w er e s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l denyhi s pet i t i on.

5