A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i t h Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ay16,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT

F NU HE RR Y,

P eti ti o n er, v. A LB ER TO R. G O N ZA LES, A tto rn e yG e n e ra l,

R e sp o n d e n t. N o. 06- 9574 ( N o. A 97- 629- 472) ( P e t i t i o n fo rRe v i e w)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e B RI S CO E , M c KAY , and AN DE RS ON , C i rcui tJudg es.

M r . H err yi s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of I ndones i a. H e 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 deni al byt heA lth o u g h th e p a rt ie s a n d th e a g e n c yre fe r t o “ w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l,” 1 t hi s l anguage w as change d t o “r es tr i ct i on on r emoval ” w i th the ena ctm entof th e Il le g a l I m m ig ra tio n R e fo rm a n d Im m ig ra n t R e s p o n s ib ility A c t ( II R IR A ). B ec au se th is cl aim w as fil ed af ter II R IR A ’s effe cti v e d ate, w e w il l use the term “r es t r i ct i on on r emoval . ” See Yan v. G onz al es , 4 3 8 F .3 d 1 2 4 9 , 1 2 5 1 n .1 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). M r. H e rr yis n o t c h a lle n g in g th e d e n ia l o f h is a s y lu m o r C A T c la im s . See 2 P e t. R e p ly B r. a t 1 .

- 2- i m m i gr at i on j udge ( I J ) of hi s r eques t for as y l um , r es tr i ct i on on r emoval , and 1 pr ot ect i on undert he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( C A T ) . M r . H errychal l enges onl yt he age ncy ’ s deni al of hi s cl ai m forr es tr i ct i on on r emoval . H e does not r ai s e anyot herchal l enges t o t he age ncy ’ s deci s i on. W e denyt he pet i t i on for 2 r e v i e w. I W e re v iew the B IA ’s l eg al co n clus ion s d e n o v o an d rev iew the a g en cy ’s fin d in g s o f

fa c t a p p lyin g th e s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s ta n d a rd . E lzo u r v . A sh c ro ft, 3 7 8 F . 3 d 1 1 4 3 , 1 1 5 0 ( 1 0 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) . Un d e rt h e s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t e s t , we m us tdet erm i ne w hethert he fa ctual fi ndi ngs “ar e s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al and pr obat i ve evi dence cons i der i ng the r ecor d as a w hol e. ” Id. C re d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n s a re s u bje c t to th e s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e te s t. Id. “W h ere the B IA ’s de cisi o n reli es u p o n an IJ’s i n it ial fin d ing s, w e m u st en su re t hats uch det erm i nat i ons ar e s ubs t ant i al l yr eas onabl e. ” Uanr er or o v. G onz al es , 4 4 3 F .3 d 1 1 9 7 , 1 2 0 4 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (q u o tatio n o m itt e d ). T h e se c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i ons w i l l be uphel d i f the I J pr ovi des “‘ s peci fi c, cogent ’ r eas ons ” foran- 3-

a d v e rs e c re d ib ility fin d in g . Wira n sa n e v . A sh c ro ft , 3 6 6 F . 3 d 8 8 9 , 8 9 7 (10 th C ir . 2004) ( quot i ng Sv irid o v v . A sh c ro ft , 358 F. 3d 722, 727 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ) . “The B I A ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ctar e conc l us i ve unl es s the r ecor d demonstr at es thatany r eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o the contr ary . ” Ni ang v. G onz al es , 4 2 2 F .3 d 1 1 8 7 , 1 1 9 6 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). II T he B I A adopt ed and a ffi r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on i n a s i ngl e- m emberbr i ef o rd e r. See 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .1 (e )(5 ). In th e se c irc u m sta n c e s, th e B IA ’s d e c isio n is th e fin a l o rd e r u n d e r re v iew , b u t w e m a yc o n su lt th e IJ’ s d e c isio n w h e n it p ro v id e s a m o re c o m p le te e x p la n a tio n o f th e g ro u n d s fo r t h e d e c is io n . See Uan reroro , 443 F. 3d at1204. W i th r egar d t o the r es tr i ct i on on r emoval cl ai m , t he B I A s t at ed: A s w e fi nd t hatthe I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng i s cons i s t entw i t h Wira n sa n e v . A sh c ro ft ; Sv irid o v v . A sh c ro

ft ; and Va tu lev v . A sh c ro

ft , contr ol l i ng cas e l aw i n the j ur i s di ct i on i n w hi ch this m att er a ri ses, w e a d o p t and affirm the Im m igrati o n Ju d g e’s fin d in g th a t th e re sp o n d e n t fa iled to c a rryh is b u rd e n o f p ro o f to e sta b lish h is e lig ib ili tyfo r [ re stric tio n o n ] re m o v a l u n d e r th e a c t. A dm i n. R . at2 ( ful l ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . B eca us e the B I A adopt ed and a ffi r m ed th e IJ’ s fin d in g th a t M r. H e rryfa iled to m e e t h is b u rd e n o f e sta b lish in g h is e lig ib ili tyfo r re stric tio n o n re m o v a l an d b e c a u se th e B IA ’s d isc u ss io n o f th is cl ai m i s l i m i t ed, w e l ook t o t he I J ’ s deci s i on fora more compl et e expl anat i on of th e g ro u n d s fo r t h e d e c is io n . See Uan reroro , 4 4 3 F .3 d a t 1 2 0 4 .- 4-

M r . H err ybear s t he bur den of pr oof on hi s r es tr i ct i on on r emoval cl ai m and he mustes t abl i s h t hat“hi s . . . l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened i n the pr opos ed countr yon t he ac countof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , 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 C . F. R . § 1208. 16( b) . H e may m ee t th is bu rde n b yd em o n str ati n g that h e su ffere d p ast p erse cu ti o n o r th at th ere i s a “c l earpr obabi l i t y ” of f utur e per s ecut i on on acc ountof one of t he pr ot ect ed g ro u n d s e n u m e ra te d a b o v e . See i d. ; Ni ang , 4 2 2 F .3 d a t 1 1 9 5 . M r. H e rry , w h o is of C hi nes e ethni ci t yand a Chri s t i an, s oughtt o es t abl i s h hi s el i gi bi l i tyfor re stric tio n o n re m o v a l p rim a rilyo n th e b a sis o f tw o in c id e n ts, w h ich w e w ill d is c u s s b e lo w . A M r . H err yt es t i fi ed thatdur i ng the M ay1998 r i ot s , he w as att acke d by n a tiv e In d o n e sia n s, tied u p , an d d ra g g e d b e h in d a m o to rb ik e fo r a p p ro x im a tely one hour . H e s t at ed thathe w as nots ur e exa ct l yw hathappene d and forhow l ong beca us e he pa s s ed out . W hen he w oke up, he had i nj ur i es on hi s hands fr om bei ng t i ed, hi s knees w er e s ki nned, and he ha d a cuton hi s fac e. H e t es t i fi ed that he di d nots eek medi cal as s i s t ance aft ert hi s i nci dentbeca us e doct or s ar e t oo e x p e n siv e . T o su p p o rt h is a lleg a tio n s re g a rd in g th e m o to rc y c le in c id e n t, M r . H err ys ubm i t t ed a phot ogr aph al l egedl yt aken a ft ert he i nci dent . T he fo l l o w i n g e x c h a n g e t h e n t o o k p l a c e b e tw e e n t h e I J a n d M r . H e rry:- 5-

Q . O kay . A nd y ou s ai d y ou w er e dr agged on the mot orbi ke for o n e h o u r? A . A p p rox im ately . I w asn ’tsu re. I t m ayb e is an h o u r. Q . A ll ri g h t. W ell , this do es sh o w that y o u h av e – y o u r kn ee s are s ki nned, and the l efts i de of y ourfac e i s s ki nned and brui s ed, buti t– I ’ m notan expe r ton bei ng dr agged a r ound on a mo t o r c y c l e , b u ti td o e s n ’ tl o o k l i k e y o u we r e d r a g g e d d o wn th e s tr e e t fo r a n h o u r. A . I’m say ing ittoo k a lon g ti m e b ec au se w h en y o u r ha n d s are t i e d a n d y o u ’ r e d r a g g e d b e h i n d a mo t o r c y c l e , a n yt i me s e e ms l i ke a l ong t i m e. I don’ tknow how l ong i tactual l yt ook. Q. W e l l , wer e y o u a b l e t o s t a yu p o n y o u rfe e tmos to f th e t i me ? I s t hatw hathappene d? A . I w a s s t a n d i n g , b u tw h e n th e y t o o k o ff, I fe l l o v e rr i g h ta w a y. Q . A n d th e n th e yd ra g g e d y o u d o w n th e stre e t li k e th a t? A . Y e s. M a yb e if

I c o u ld h a v e sh o w n th e re st o f m yp a n ts, it w oul d have s how n w hati tdi d t o m yl egs . B utbeca us e i tw as cut , t hatpor t i on of i tI cannots how y ou. A nd – Q . I s t hatt he cl ot hes y ou w er e w ear i ng? A . Y es. Q . W ell , they ’re clea n . T h e sh irt’ s clea n , an d it ’s no t r ipp ed . It ’s notpos s i bl e y ou w er e dr agged a r ound foran houron the g ro u n d w e a rin g th a t sh irt. A . I tfe l tt o m e i tw a s a n e x tr e m e l y l o n g t i m e , a n d th a t ’ s w h y I sa id m a yb e it w a s a n h o u r. I d o n ’t k n o w h o w lo n g it rea lly t o o k . A n d I p a s s e d

– I l o s tc o n s c i o u s n e s s , a n d th a t ’ s w h y I don’ tr emem berhow l ong i tactual l yt ook. Q . Y ea h , b u t l o o k at th e sh irt. It ’s – I thin k it ’s ev en ir o n ed . It ’s ab so lutelyclea n an d loo k s li k e it ’s a f resh sh irt. Itd o esn ’t even l oo k li ke y ou w ere w orki ng ou ti n the garden, m uch l ess d ra g g e d a ro u n d in th e stre e t. A . I c a n n o t an sw e r th a t. Q . R ig h t. A . I have c om pl et el yfor got t en. T o t el l y ou the truth, I don’ teven re m e m b e r, b u t itc o u ld h a v e b e e n th a t I w a s w e a rin g a jac k e t, and I s t i l l don’ tr emem berw hatI w as w ear i ng and w hythat w a s c le a n . A d m in . R . a t 1 1 7 -1 9 .- 6-

A t th e e n d o f

th e h e a rin g , the IJ m a d e th e fo llo w in g fin d in g s w ith re g a rd to t h i s p o r t i o n o f

M r . He r r y ’ s c l a i m: I di d t hi nk, how ever , thatthe r es pondentdi d nott es t i fy c re d ib lya s to w h a t h a p p e n e d to h im in In d o n e sia o n a c c o u n t o f h is ethni ci t yand hi s r el i gi on. T he r es pondentt es t i fi ed thathe had be en d rag g ed aro u n d u n co n scio u s o n a m o torcy cle thro u g h the s tr ee ts fo r a per i od of an hour , and y etthe r es pondentdi d notr equi r e medi cal as s i s t ance aft ert hi s epi s ode. T h e re sp o n d e n t p ro v id e d a p ictu re w h ich h e sa id it d e p icts h im r i ghtaft ert he epi s ode i n t he cl othes thathe w as w ear i ng dur i ng the e p is o d e . T h e c lo th e s a re c le a n . T h e ya p p e a r t o e v e n b e w e ll p re s s e d . T he r es pondentappea r s cl ean. H e does have s om e s cr apes and w o u n d s o n h is k n e e s a n d w rists a n d fa c e , b u t itd o e s n o t ap p e a r to t hi s C our tt hati ti s t he type of i nj ur i es w hi ch w oul d acc om pany b eing d rag g ed aro u n d fo r an h o u r th rou g h the s tr ee ts. T h e C o u rt b e liev e s th a t th e re sp o n d e n t h a s e m b e lli sh e d h is te stim o n yin th is regar d an d d oes no tfi nd him t o b e credi ble r egardi ng act s of pa st per s ecut i on. Id . a t 5 7 -5 8 . M r. H e rrya rg u e s th a t th e B IA e rre d in a ffirm in g th e IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib lity fi ndi ng. A s not ed above , t he B I A concl uded thatthe I J ’ s det erm i nat i on w as cons i s t entw i t h contr ol l i ng cas e l aw i n thi s court , ci t i ng t o Wi r ans ane , Svi r i dov and Va tu lev v . A sh c ro ft , 354 F. 3d 1207 ( 10th C i r . 2003) . I n Svi r i dov , this co u rt hel d, “[b] eca us e an a l i en’ s t es t i m onyal one mays uppor tan appl i cat i on for [r es t r i ct i on on] r emoval oras y l um , the I J m us tgi ve s peci fi c, cogentr eas ons for di s bel i evi ng i t . ” 358 F. 3d at727 ( quot at i on and ci t at i on om i t t ed) . W e r ei t er at ed t hi s pr opos i t i on i n Wi r ans ane , n o tin g “ w e h a v e jo in e d se v e ra l o th e r c irc u its in requi ri ng t hat an I J general l ym ustgive ‘ speci fi c, cog ent’ reas on s for an adv ers e- 7-

cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng. ” 366 F. 3d at897 ( quot i ng Svi r i dov , 3 5 8 F . 3 d at 72 7 ). In Vat ul ev , w e uphel d t he I J ’ s det erm i nat i on thatthe pet i t i onerhad notm ether bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng r efuge e s t atus not i ng thats he di d notpr ovi de s uffi ci ent d etail s to su p p o rth er c lai m an d co n clud ing that the “ v ag u e a n d co n clus o ryn ature o f [ h e r] te s tim o n yu n d e rc u t its p ro b a tiv e v a lu e .” 3 5 4 F .3 d a t 1 2 1 0 . T h e B IA c ited to re lev a n t ca se law re g a rd in g a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i ons i n t hi s cour t . T he I J compl i ed w i th the r el evantcas e l aw by gi vi ng s peci fi c, cogentr eas ons forhi s adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on and the det erm i nat i on w as s ubs t ant i al l yr eas onabl e. T he r ecor d demonstr at es that M r. H e rryw a s g iv e n a n o p p o rtu n ityto p ro v id e a n e x p lan a tio n fo r c e rta in in c o n sis ten c ies in h is a p p e a ra n c e a f ter th e a lleg e d in c id e n t an d h e w a s n o t ab le to offe ranycr edi bl e expl anat i on, r es pondi ng “I can’ tans w erthat ” and “ I have co m p let e[ ly ] fo rgo tt en . ” A d m in. R . at 11 8 . T h e B IA ’s de cisi o n affirm ing the IJ’s adver s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng appl i es the corr ectl egal s t andar ds and i s s uppor t ed by s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd . B M r . H err yt es t i fi ed thathi s fatherw as m ur der ed i n 1991 bya nat i ve I ndones i an w ho w or ked as t hei rgar dener . T he murde r erw as appr ehende d one y earl at erand i m pr i s oned forfoury ear s forthe cr i m e. M r . H erryt es t i fi ed thatt he m ur der ert hr eat ened hi s fami l yand s ai d thatas s oon as he w as r el eas ed fr om- 8-

p riso n h e w a s g o in g to fin d th e m . B e c a u se M r. H e rry ’s m o th e r w a s a f ra id s o m e th in g w o u ld h a p p e n to h im , s h e s e n t h im to liv e in B a li in 1 9 9 6 . M r. H e rrytes tifie d th a t h e fe a re d re tu rn in g to In d o n e sia b e c a u se h e is s til l afr ai d of hi s father ’ s m ur der er . H e t es t i fi ed thathe i s afr ai d of the murde r er beca us e “[ t he murde r eri s ] angrybeca us e he w as puti n pr i s on, and us ual l yw hen y ou’ r e puti n pr i s on, y ou w ants om ebodyt o payforthat . ” Id. at113. W hen M r . H err yw as t hen as ked i f he w as i nvol ved i n put t i ng the murde r eri n pr i s on, he r es ponded: “N o, butm yw hol e fa m i l yw as i nvol ved i n put t i ng hi m i n j ai l , and he m i ghtacc us e the w hol e fa m i l y . ” Id. at114. A ft er the h eari ng , t he IJ m ade the foll ow i ng fi nd i ng s: T he r es pondental s o expr es s es a fe arof r epr i s al bythe perpetr at or w ho ki l l ed the r es pondent ’ s father . A gai n, I thi nk thati ti s r ather unl i kel yt hatt he r es pondentw oul d be s i ngl ed outbythi s m an for harm s i nce the r es pondentdi d nothave a nypr om i nentr ol e i n the pr os ecut i on of hi s father ’ s ki l l er . I n anyevent , i tw oul d appea rthat t hi s w oul d be a pur el yper s onal vendett a byone man agai ns tthe r es pondentorhi s fami l yand as s uch w oul d noti m pl i cat e anyof the p ro te c te d g ro u n d s u n d e r t h e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A c t. T her efor e, t he r es pondentcoul d notbe gr ant ed [r es tr i ct i on on] re m o v a l . . . d u e to th is lia b ility. Id . at58. M r . H err yar gues t hatt he I J err ed bec aus e he di d notcons i derw hetherthe m ur derof M r . H err y ’ s fatheri t s el f qual i fi ed as an ac tof per s ecut i on, buti ns t ead co n side red o n lyw h ethe r M r. H erryh ad a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar tha t his fath er’s m ur der erm i ghtat t ack hi m i f he r etur ned t o I ndones i a. W hi l e thatm aybe true,- 9-

M r . H err y ’ s couns el di d notar gue atthe hea r i ng thatthe murde ri t s el f cons t i tut ed p e rs e c u tio n , ra th e r h e fo c u s e d o n M r. H e rr y ’s fe a r o f h is fa th e r’ s m u rd e re r. See , e. g. , i d. at94- 95, 106. T he I J ’ s fi ndi ngs w er e i n r es pons e t o the ar gum ent s and evi dence pr es ent ed att he hea r i ng. M or eover , ther e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence i n t he re c o rd to s u p p o rt th e c o n c lu s io n th a t th e m u rd e r w a s n o t p e rs e c u tio n . I n or dert o be cons i der ed per s ecut i on, the ac tm us tbe on ac countof a p ro te c te d g ro u n d . See 8 C . F. R . § 1208. 16( b) ( 1) . A tthe hea r i ng, the fol l ow i ng e x c h a n g e to o k p lac e b e tw e e n M r. H e rrya n d c o u n se l fo r th e g o v e rn m e n t: Q . W h yd id [ the g ard en er] k il l y o u r fa ther? A . H e as ked form or e moneyfr om m yfather , butm yfathernever a n s we r e d h i m. An d th e n h e s t a r t e d wa t c h i n g fo rt i me wh e r e my fatherw as al one . . . . A nd s o w hen he w as byhi m s el f, that ’ s w hen h e a s k e d fo r m o n e ya g a in , a n d th a t’ s w h e n it h a p p e n e d . Q . D o y o u k n o w h o w m u ch m o n eyh e a sk ed fo r? A. No , I d o n ’ tk n o w. Q . S o h e k ill e d y o u r fa th e r b e c a u se y o u r fa th e r re f u se d to g iv e h im m o n e y? A . Y es. Q . W as th ere an yo ther rea so n h e k il led y o u r fa ther?

. . . [A . ] H e w as a n g ryb ec au se m yfa ther d id n o t give h im the e x tr a m o n eyso h e d ec ided to g et i t al l t o am eli o rate h is an g er. A dm i n. R . at113- 14. M r . H err y ’ s t es t i m onym akes cl earthathi s father ’ s m ur derw as noton acc ountof anypr ot ect ed gr ound. M r . H erryatt empt s t o ar gue on appe al thatthe g e n e ra lize d a n im o sityto w a rd s e th n ic C h in e se m a k e s th is a m ix e d -m o tiv e c a se in w h ic h e th n ic ity “ u n d o u b te d ly p la y e d s o m e s ig n ific a n t p a rt .” P e t. B r. a t 2 4 .- 10-

T her e i s no s uppor ti n t he r ecor d forthi s s t at ement . M r . H erryi s unequi vocal aboutt he r eas on forhi s father ’ s m ur der . A s s etfor th above, he w as gi ven the op po rtun i t yt o o ffer ot her r easons fo r the m urder and h e gav e no ne. B ecause t her e i s no evi dence t hatt he murde rw as on acc ountof ethni ci ty , i tdi d not pr ovi de a ba s i s forgr ant i ng r el i ef. T o th e e x ten t M r. H e rryis a lso c h a llen g in g th e IJ’ s fin d in g re g a rd in g h is fea rof futur e per s ecut i on fr om hi s father ’ s m ur der er , w e conc l ude thats ubs t ant i al evidence in the record supp ort s the IJ’ s fi nd i ng that the v end et t a against M r . H err yand hi s fami l yw as pur el yper s onal and di d noti m pl i cat e anyof the p ro te c te d g ro u n d s u n d e r t h e A c t. T h e p e t i t i o n fo rr e v i e w i s DE NI E D. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

M aryB eck Bri s coe C i r cui tJ udge