2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-20-2005 

# M a gd ale n a v

. Att y Ge n U S A 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 . 04-1921

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou 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 a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y 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 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

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

w . v i l l a no v a . e du . Re c omme nde d C it a t ion " M a g d ale n a v

. Att y Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 812. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/8121 NO T P RE CE DE NT 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. 04- 1921 EL I SA MA GD AL EN A; DA VI D H OR I JAD I Peti ti on er s v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERI CA Re s ponde nt
Peti ti on fo r Revie w o f an O rder o f th e B o ardo f

Imm ig ratio n A p p eals (Nos . A79- 321- 432; A79- 321- 433)

Su bm itte d U nd er

Th ir d C ir cuit

LA R 3 4.1(a) Da t e : Jul y

14, 2005 Befo re : ALITO , VAN AN TWER PE N and AL DISE RT , Cir cuit Judg es ( Fi l e d: Jul y

20, 2005)

OPI NI ON OF THE COURT AL DISE RT , Cir cuit

Judg e.Th e I mm igrati on and N at ionali ty Act ( “INA ”) was am ended b y the REA L ID A ct 1 of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109- 13, 119 St a t . 231. Be c aus e the s e am e ndm e nt s do not a ffe c t the IN A p ro v isio n s ap p licab le in th is case, w e w ill n o t d iscu ss th e R E A L ID A ct f u rth er. 2 Pe t i t i one r s El i s aMa gda l e naand Davi d Hor i ja di , e thni c a l l y

Chi ne s e c i t i z e ns of I ndone s i a , s e e k r e vi e w of afi na l or de r of r e m ova l i s s ue d by

the Boar d of I mm i gr a t i on Ap peal s ( “BIA”) on Marc h 2 4, 20 04 . The order re vers ed the I mm igrati on Judg e’ s ( “ I J ’ s ” ) or de r

gr ant i ng a s yl um

for Ma gda l e naand de r i va t i ve a s yl um for Hor i ja di and withho lding o f rem ov al to bo th peti ti on er s. We have ju ri sdic ti on to re view the BIA’s o rd er p u rsu an t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . We w ill d en y th e p etitio n . 1 I. Beca use we wri te on ly

fo r the part ie s, wh o are fam il iar with the fact s, procedural hi s t ory and c ont e nt i ons pr e s e nt e d, we wi l l not r e c i t e the m

e xc e pt a s ne c e s s ary

t o the d iscu ssio n . II. An appl i c ant

i s e l i gi bl e for

wi thhol di ng of r e m ova l i f “ the a l i e n’ s l i fe or fr e e dom w o u l db e th r e a t e n e di n [ th e i r ] c o u n try b e c au 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 e m be r s hi p i n a

part i c ul ar

s oc i a l gr oup, or

po l i t i c a l op i ni on . ” 8 U . S. C. § 1 23 1( b) ( 3) ( A) ( 2000) . I f the appl i c ant

i s de t e rm i ne d t o have be e n pe r s e c ut e d i n the pa s t on a c c ount

of o n e o f th ese g ro u n d s, w e p resu m e th at h is o r h er lif e o r f reed o m w o u ldb e th reaten edin the future upo n ret

urning to the c ou ntry

of re m ov al . 8 C.F.R. § 1 20 8.16 (b)( 1)(200 4).Th e DHS was form er ly the I mm igrati on and N at ural iz at ion S er

vice (“ INS”). 2 3 Th is pres um

ption m ay

be re bu tt ed if the Depart m ent of H om el and S ec urity (the “DHS ”) 2 sh o w s b y a p rep o n d eran ce o f

th e ev id en ce th at th ere h as b een a f u n d am en tal ch an g e in circu m stan ces su ch th at th e ap p lican t’s lif e o r f reed o m w o u ldn o lo n g er b e th reaten ed . 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 6 (b )(1 )(A ). We re view the BIA’s find ings of fact un der the deferenti al substantia l e vidence st andard. Abd il le v. Ashcroft, 242 F.3d47 7, 48 3 (3d Cir. 20 01 ). Un der the substantia l ev id en ce stan d ard , w e m

u st up h o ldth e B IA ’s f

in d in g s u n less th e ev id en ce n o t o n ly sup p o rts a co n trary

co n clu sio n , b u t co m

p els it. Id . at 4 8 3 -4 8 4 . Here , the BIA d enie d the peti ti on er s’ applic at ions fo r withh olding of re m ov al be c aus e the c i r c um s t anc e s i n I ndone s i ahave c hange d and the pe t i t i one r s ’ l i ve s and freedom wo uld n ot li kely

be thre at ened because of thei r Chinese ethn ic it

y . The BIA r e fe rr e d t o the 2000 Country Re port whi c h s t a t e s tha t

the ne w I ndone s i an gove rnm e nt p ro m o tes racial an deth n ic to leran ce an dth at racially m o tiv atedattack s ag ain st eth n ic C h in ese citizen s h av e d ro p p edsin ce M ay 1 9 9 8 . T h e B IA b asedits d ecisio n o n th e m o st r e c e nt c ountry r e port s . Se e Zube dav. As hc r oft , 333 F. 3d 463, 477- 478 ( 3d Ci r . 2003) ( s t a t i ng tha t

c ountry r e port s ar e “ the m os t

appr opr i a t e and pe rhaps the be s t r e s our c e ” for

“ i nform a t i on on pol i t i c a l s i t ua t i ons i n for e i gn na t i ons ” ) . The pe t i t i one r s c ont e nd tha t the 2 0 0 0 co u n try

rep o rt is n o t “d if

f eren t en o u g h ” f

ro m th e 1 9 9 8 rep o rt to co n stitu te “ch an g edcircu m stan ces.” T h e 2 0 0 0 rep o rt, h o w ev er, ex p licitly states th at “[ r] acially4

m o tiv atedattack s ag ain st [ eth n ically C h in ese] h av e d ro p p edsh arp ly sin ce m id -1 9 9 8 .” De partm e nt

of St a t e , Bur e au of De m oc r a c y , Hum an Ri ght s , and Labor , Fe br uary 2001, 2 0 0 0 C o u n try

R ep o rts o n H u m an R ig h ts P ractices: In d o n esia at 3 0 . A cco rd in g ly , th ere is sub stan tial ev id en ce to sup p o rt th e B IA ’s co n clu sio n s. T h e B IA also d en iedth e p etitio n ers’ ap p licatio n s f o r asylu m . T o estab lish e l i gi bi l i ty for a s yl um , an appl i c ant

m us t fi l e hi s or

he r appl i c a t i on wi thi n one y e ar of arr i va l i n the Uni t e d St a t e s . 8 C. F. R. § 1208. 4( a ) ( 2) ( i i ) . An appl i c a t i on m ay be co n sid ered , h o w ev er, if

th e d elay w as cau sedb y

ex trao rd in ary

circu m stan ces. 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (a)(2 )(D ). T h e IJ co n clu d edth at th e p etitio n ers w ere j u stif iedin f ilin g a late applic at ion b ec ause the i solati on ca used by lang uage and cultural barr ie rs qu al ifie d as “e xtra ordinary

ci rc um st ance s. ” Pet it ioners were al so the vic ti m s of f ra udbeca use they paid som eone to file thei r a pp li cati on and h e del ay ed the proces s for m on ths. Th e BIA re vers ed the I J’ s dec is ion, concluding that the pet it ioners ’ l angu age andcult ural barr ie rs we r e not e xc e pt i ona l and tha t

e ve n i f the y

we r e the vi c t i m s of fr aud, the y m e t wi th the ap p l i c a t i o n p r e p ar e r

m o r e th an aye ar

a f t e r th e i r arr i v a l i n th e U n i t e dS t a t e s . A c c o r d i n g l y, th e B IA d en iedth e ap p licatio n f o r asylu m . Th is Co urt has held that

we la ck the juris dict ion to revie w w hether extr aordinar

y circu m stan ces w arran t w aiv in g th e o n e y ear tim e lim itatio n f o r asylu m ap p licatio n s. See Tar rawall y v. Ashcroft, 338 F.3d18 0, 18 5 (3d Cir. 20 03 ) ( “8 U.S.C. § 1 15 8(a) (3), pr ovi de s tha t

‘ no c ourt s ha l l have jur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w any de t e rm i na t i on by

theA tto rn ey

G en eral u n d er p arag rap h [ (a)] (2 ),’ w h ich in clu d es th e p ro v isio n relatin g to whe the r e xtr a or di nary

c i r c um s t anc e s warr ant

wa i vi ng the one y e ar

t i m e l i m i t a t i on for asylu m ap p licatio n s.”). A cco rd in g ly , w e lackj u risd ictio n to rev iew th e asylu m issu e. * * * * * W e have c ons i de r e d a l l ar gum e nt s r a i s e d by the part i e s and c onc l ude tha t no fu rther dis cuss ion is nec es sary . W e hold that s ub st anti al evidence supp orte d the BIA’s o rd er. The pe t i t i on for

r e vi e w wi l l be de ni e d.