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 4-11-2007 

# Ningsi h 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 . 05-5435

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 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
" Nin gsi h v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1326. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1326NOT 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 

### No. 05- 5435 YU LINING SI H; ALBERT MAXISAMBOR, Peti ti on er s

v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Re s ponde nt PETI TI O N FO R R EV I EW O F A D EC I SI O N O F THE B OA RD OF I M M I GR ATI ON APPEALS

A gencyN o. A 96- 257- 681 Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : M iriam K . M ill s Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 27, 2007 B efor e: R E N D E L L , B A R R Y and C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: A pr i l 11, 2007) OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge Pet i t i oner s , Y ul i N i ngs i h and A l ber tM axi Sam bor , ethni c C hi nes e C hr i s t i ans w ho2

ar e nat i ves and ci t i zens of I ndones i a, pet i t i on forr evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ) a f f irm in g th e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e ’s ( “ IJ” ) d e n ial o f th e ir appl i cat i ons foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . Fort he fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on. I. Sam borent er ed the U ni t ed St at es on M ay9, 1999 as a vi s i t ori n tr ans i tand w as author i zed t o r emai n i n t he countr yunt i l M ay14, 1999. N i ngs i h ent er ed the countr yon J anuary10, 2001 as a vi s i t orforpl eas ur e. She w as author i zed t o r emai n i n t he U ni t ed S tat es u n ti l July9 , 2 0 0 1 . B o th f ail ed to leav e a s req u ir ed . T h eym et he re, an d w ere m arr i ed on J ul y24, 2001. N i ngs i h gave bi r th t o t hei rchi l d, C hr i s t opher , on A pr i l 14, 2002. N ing sih f

il ed an ap p li ca ti o n fo r asy lum an d w ith h o lding o f re m o v al i n F eb rua ry 2 0 0 3 . S a mb o rr e l i e d o n t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f o rp u rp o s e s o f

a s y l u m, b u tf

i l e d h i s o wn a p p lic a tio n s e e k in g w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l a n d p ro te c tio n u n d e r C A T in J u n e 2 0 0 3 . In A p ri l 20 0 3 , b o th N ing sih a n d S am b o r w ere serv ed w ith N o ti ce s to A p p ea r, w hi ch al l eged thatt heyw er e r emovabl e as non- i m m i gr ant s w ho r emai ned i n t he U ni t ed St at es forper i ods of t i m e l ongert han perm i t t ed, i n vi ol at i on of s ect i on 237( a) ( 1) ( B ) of t he I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i t yA ct , 8 U . S. C . § 1227( a) ( 1) ( B ) . T heyconce ded the char ges befor e the I m m i gr at i on J udge and r eas s ert ed thei rvar i ous cl ai m s forr el i ef. A tan A ugus t26, 2004 hear i ng, pet i t i oner s pr es ent ed l i m i t ed t es t i m ony , r el y i ngA ccor di ng t o t he tr ans cr i pt , N i ngs i h t es t i fi ed thats he w as “fr equent l yfondl ed” by 1 t hese m en. (A . R . 37 . ) A refer ence to such b ehav i or, ho w ever, i s not foun d an yw here el se in th e a d m in istra tiv e re c o rd o r in th e b rie f s o f th e p a rties in th is a p p e a l. Sam bor ’ s appl i cat i on r ecount s onl yone i nci dent

— a M ar ch 1999 r obberyof w hi ch he 2 w as t he vi ct i m . Sam borm akes al m os tno att emptt o l i nk thi s t o hi s C hi nes e ethni ci t yor C hri st i an fa i t h, rem arki ng on l yt hat anot her vi ct i m of the viol ence “ w as a C hinese w o m a n .” (A .R . 1 8 8 .) 3 pr i m ar i l yon t hei rr es pect i ve appl i cat i ons . N i ngs i h t es t i fi ed thats he del ay ed fi l i ng her asy l um app l i cat i on becau se she w as di agn osed w i t h h epati t i s B and w as advis ed to r est dur i ng herpr egnanc y , neede d t i m e t o fi l l outthe document s , and w as bus yt aki ng car e of herchi l d and “doi ng hom e ac t i vi t i es . ” ( A . R . 44. ) A s forherr eas ons forl eavi ng I ndones i a, N i ngs i h t es t i fi ed thats he w as acc os t ed bys ever al m en on a bus w ho thr eat ened herbeca us e of he rpos i t i on as a y out h l eade ri n herchur ch. She di d notr epor tthe 1 i ncidentt o the poli ce. H er appl i cat i on al so dis cussed d i scr i m i nati on she suffered as a chi l d, t he burni ng of herfather ’ s s t or e, and the anxi etys he expe r i ence d as a r es ul tof the 1998 r i ot s . N i ngs i h and Sambor both t es t i fi ed thatnum er ous fami l ym ember s have

2
re m a in e d in In d o n e sia w ith o u t se rio u s in c id e n t. In a d d iti o n , the IJ q u e stio n e d N in g sih a b o u t a le tter p u rp o rte d lyw ritten b yth e p a sto r o f h e r c h u rc h in In d o n e sia , w h ich , d e sp ite bei ng dat ed Sept ember15, 2002, r efe r ence d, acc or di ng t o N i ngs i h, the t err or i s tbom bi ngs i n B al i , w hi ch occ ur r ed on O ct ober12, 2002. F oll ow i ng t he h eari ng , t he IJ i ssued an oral decis i on den y i ng peti t i on ers ’ appl i cat i ons butgr ant i ng vol unt arydepartur e. T he I J concl uded thatpet i t i oner s ’ as y l um appl i cat i on w as unt i m el ybeca us e i tw as fi l ed more than one y earaft erN i ngs i h’ s arr i val4

i n t he U ni t ed St at es . T he I J found thatN i ngs i h’ s var i ous excus es forthi s del aydi d not amount t o “extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s . ” ( A . R . 18. ) C i t i ng num er ous i ncons i s t enci es and the “i ncr edul ous excus es ” pr offe r ed byN i ngs i h forherdel ay , the I J al s o det erm i ned that N ing sih w as n o t cred ible. (A . R . 1 9 . ) T h e IJ c o n clud ed that, in an yev en t, p eti ti o n ers d id n o t alle g e in c id e n ts w h ich a m o u n ted to p e rse c u tio n a n d c o u ld n o t sh o w a w e llf o u n d e d f e a r o f p e rs e c u tio n if

th e yw e re to re tu rn to In d o n e s ia . B yo rde r da ted N o v em b er 1 8 , 2 0 0 5 , the B IA ad o p ted a n d af firm ed the IJ’s deci s i on. I n addi t i on, t he B I A r ej ect ed pet i t i oner s ’ ar gum entthattheyhad es t abl i s hed a p a tte rn a n d p ra c tic e o f

p e rs e c u tio n a g a in s t C h in e s e C h ri s tia n s in In d o n e s ia . W e h av e jurisdicti o n p u rsua n t t o 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a)(1). W h ere , as h ere , the B IA adopt s t he fi ndi ngs of the I J butal s o engage s i n a di s cus s i on of var i ous i s s ues , w e r evi ew b o th th e IJ a n d th e B IA . S u k w a n p u tr a v . G o n z a le s , 4 3 4 F .3 d 6 2 7 , 6 3 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). II. I n or dert o qual i fyfort he di s cr et i onaryr el i ef of as y l um , an al i en mustfi l e an appl i cat i on “w i t hi n 1 y earaft ert he dat e of the al i en’ s arr i val i n t he U ni t ed St at es . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 15 8(a) (2) (B ). W e hav e no j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew a fi nd i ng of u nti m el i ness, i d. § 1158( a) ( 3) , and w e s i m i l ar l ycannotr evi ew the I J ’ s and the B I A ’ s det erm i nat i on t hat t her e ar e no “e xt r aor di naryci r cumst ance s ” w hi ch exc us e unt i m el yfi l i ng of an a p p lic a tio n , id . § 1 1 5 8 (a )( 2 )( D ); S u k w a n p u tr a , 4 3 4 F .3 d a t 6 3 5 . B o th the IJ an d the B IA fo u n d that N ing sih d id n o t fi le he r ap p li ca ti o n u n ti l m o re5

t han one y earaft ers he arr i ved i n t hi s countr y . T heyal s o rul ed thatthi s del ayw as nott he res ultof ex t raor dinaryci rcum st ances. W e hav e no j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew these concl us i ons . A s s uch, pet i t i oner s ’ pet i t i on forr evi ew of the deni al of thei ras y l um appl i cat i on m us tbe deni ed. In order t o b e el i gibl e for w i thh oldi ng of rem ov al , an ap pli cant m ust “demonstr at e[] a ‘ cl earpr obabi l i t y ’ that , upon r eturn t o hi s orherhom e countr y , hi s or h e r‘ 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 ’ o n a c c o u n to f r a c e , r e l i g i o n , n a t i o n a l i t y, m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on. ” C hen v. A s hcr oft , 376 F. 3d 2 1 5 , 2 2 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). “A n a lien w h o f a ils to e sta b lish th a t h e o r sh e h a s a w e llf o 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 f o r a g ra n t o f

a sy lu m , n e c e ss a rilyw ill f a il to e sta b lish th e rig h t to w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l.” Id . “P e rse c u tio n ” re q u ire s “ ‘th re a ts to l i fe, confi nement , t or tur e, and ec onom i c r es t r i ct i ons s o s ever e thattheycons t i tut e a thr eat t o l i fe orfr eedom, ’ ” Li e v. A s hcr oft , 396 F. 3d 530, 536 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng Fat i n v. I N S, 12 F. 3d 1233, 1240 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ) , w hi ch ar e “c om m i t t ed bythe governm entor for ces t he governm enti s ei t herunabl e orunw i l l i ng t o contr ol , ” Sukw anputr a, 434 F. 3d at 637. A pat t ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on r equi r es thats uch per s ecut i on be “ ‘ s y s t emi c, pervas i ve, oror gani zed. ’ ” Li e, 396 F. 3d at537 ( quot i ng N gur e v. A s hcr oft , 367 F. 3d 9 7 5 , 9 9 1 (8 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 )) . T o q u ali fyfo r pro tecti o n u n d er C A T , the a p p li ca n t m u st “estab li sh that itis m o re l i kel yt han nott hathe ors he w oul d be t or tur ed i f r emoved t o t he pr opos ed countr yof6

r emoval . ” 8 C . F. R . § 208. 16( c) ( 2) . T or tur e i s defi ned as “anyactbyw hi ch s ever e pai n or s u f f e ri n g , w h e th e r p h y s ic a l o r m e n ta l, is in te n tio n a lly in f lic te d o n a p e rs o n .” Id . § 2 0 8 .1 8 (a )( 1 ). W e r evi ew fors ubs t ant i al evi dence , w hi ch r equi r es us t o exami ne the I J ’ s and the B IA ’s find ing s, inclu d ing tho se o f a d v erse cre d ibil ity , to d eterm ine w h ethe r th eyare

“ su p p o rte d b ye v id e n c e th a t a r e a so n a b le m in d w o u ld f in d a d e q u a te.” D ia v . A sh c ro f t, 353 F. 3d 228, 247–49 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( en banc ) . W e mayr ever s e a f i ndi ng onl yw hen “no r eas onabl e fa ctfi ndercoul d m ake thatfi ndi ng on t he admi ni s t r at i ve r ecor d. ” I d. at249. Pet i t i oner s ar gue thatt he fi ndi ngs of the I J and the B I A ar e nots uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence . W e di s agr ee. Fi r s t , t her e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence i n t he r ecor d t o s uppor tthe I J ’ s fi ndi ng that Ni n g s i h “ l a c k s t h e r e q u i s i t e c r e d i b i l i t yt o h a v e e s t a b l i s h e d a n yo f h e ra s s e r t i o n s . ” ( A. R. 2 2 .) D u rin g h e r te stim o n y , N in g sih re p e a ted lyc h a n g e d h e r e x c u se f o r f a ili n g to tim e ly fi l e herappl i cat i on and i ndi cat ed vary i ng t i m e fr ames forw hen s he dec i ded thats he
w oul d s eek a s y l um . W hen as ked abouta l ett erthats he al l egedl yr ece i ved fr om herpas t or i n I ndones i a, N i ngs i h decl ar ed thatthe l ett erdi s cus s ed the t err or i s tat t ack i n B al i , even t hough t hatat t ack oc curr ed one mont h aft erthe l ett erw as purpor t edl yw r i t t en. A s s uch, t he I J ’ s fi ndi ng i s cl ear l ybas ed on s peci fi c, cogentr eas ons i n t he r ecor d. See D i a, 353 F. 3d at250. S e c o n d , the IJ’ s f

in d in g th a t th e p e tit io n e rs f a iled to e sta b lish p a st p e rse c u tio n isA s not ed above , Sam bor ’ s cl ai m of al l eged pe r s ecut i on s eems c om pl et el yunr el at ed 3 t o hi s ethni ci t yand hi s r el i gi on. O f cour s e, gi ven the unt i m el i nes s of pet i t i oner s ’ as y l um appl i cat i on, t o qual i fyfor 4 r el i ef theyw oul d need t o s how t he cl earpr obabi l i t yof per s ecut i on r equi r ed i n or dert o be e l i g i b l e f o rwi t h h o l d i n g o f

r e mo v a l . Be c a u s e th e yc a n n o tme e tth e l o we rs t a n d a r d , we n e e d n o t d is c u s s th is m o re s tr in g e n t s ta n d a rd . 7 s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . N i ngs i h’ s cl ai m es s ent i al l yboi l s dow n t o one in c id e n t— th e h a ra ss m e n t sh e su f f e re d a t th e h a n d s o f

se v e ra l m e n o n a b u s. N in g sih cl ai m s no harm fr om t hati nci dentand admi t s thats he neve rr epor t ed thati nci dentt o the pol i ce. She offe r ed no evi dence , m uch l es s evi dence s uffi ci entt o ups etthe admi ni s t r at i ve f in d in g s, th a t th e in c id e n t w a s a n yth in g o th e r th a n g e n e ra l law les sn e ss b yp riv a te i ndi vi dual s . N i ngs i h’ s ot hercl ai m s ar e of di s cr i m i nat i on and do notr i s e t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on. 3 T h ir d , there is sub stan ti al ev iden ce in the rec o rd to su p p o rtthe IJ’s a n d the B IA ’s fi ndi ngs t hatpet i t i oner s have nots how n a w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on. 4 Pet i t i oner s bot h t es t i fi ed thatt hei rfami l i es have r emai ned i n I ndones i a w i t houts er i ous i nci dent . T hi s s er i ous l yunderm i nes the r eas onabl enes s of thei rfea r s . See Li e, 396 F. 3d at537. I n addi t i on, pet i t i oner s have f ai l ed t o es t abl i s h t hattheyw i l l be t ar get ed for per s ecut i on ort hatper s ecut i on of C hi nes e C hr i s t i ans bythe I ndones i an governm ent , or fo rce s itis un w il li n g to co n tr o l, is “sy stem ic, p erv asiv e, or o rga n ized . ” T h e C o u n try R epor t s ci t ed byt he I J and the B I A s uppor tthi s concl us i on. F in a lly, p e titio n e rs f

a ile d to s h o w th a t th e yw e re e n title d to re lie f u n d e r C A T .8

T h ere is no ev iden ce in the rec o rd th at su p p o rt s p eti ti o n ers’ co n tention that itis m o re l i kel yt han nott heyw i l l be t or tur ed upon thei rr eturn t o I ndones i a. III . F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .