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 4-30-2008 

# Liong 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 . 07-2239

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_2008

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 2008 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 " L ion g v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1305. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1305NOT 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

___________ N o. 07- 2239

___________ L AY S HE L I ONG, Pet i t i oner

v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 96- 263- 941) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e C har l es M . H oneym an

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 9, 2008 B efor e: M cK E E , N Y G A A R D and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( fi l ed: A pr i l 30, 2008 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM

L ayShe L i ong, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of I ndones i a, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a deci s i on bythe B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) di s m i s s i ng L i ong’ s appea l of an i m m i gr at i on j udge’ s deni al of hi s appl i cat i on foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e. Forthe fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e w i l l denyt he2

p e titio n f o r r e v ie w . P e tit io n e r L a yS h e L io n g is a n a tiv e a n d c iti z e n o f In d o n e sia . L io n g is e th n ica lly C h in e se a n d a C h ristia n . L io n g a lso id e n tifie s h im se lf a s a h o m o se x u a l. L io n g ’s p a re n ts a r e b o th d e c e a s e d a n d h i s s i s t e rl i v e s i n I n d o n e s i a . I n 2 0 0 3 , Li o n g a p p l i e d f o ra s y l u m, w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l, a n d re lie f

u n d e r t h e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rt u re . I n s uppor tof hi s appl i cat i ons , L i ong cl ai m ed thathe had s uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on and fe ar ed futur e per s ecut i on on the bas i s of hi s ethni ci ty , r el i gi on, and mem ber s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup ( s exual or i ent at i on) . B efor e the I J , pet i t i onert es t i fi ed thathe w as hom os exual and thathe w as a tr eas ur erfora gayadvoca cyor gani zat i on i n I ndones i a fr om 1 9 9 2 -1 9 9 5 . L io n g tes tifie d th a t p a rt o f th e re a so n h e lef

t In d o n e sia w a s th a t p e o p le a ro u n d h im d id n o t li k e h is a c tin g “ f e m in in e .” In 1 9 9 4 , L io n g w a s ro b b e d o n h is w a yto chur ch and punc hed i n t he mout h. I n 1997, L i ong w as r obbed atkni fe- poi nt . L i ong t es t i fi ed thatthe as s ai l ant s not i ced he w as act i ng femi ni ne, and “di d notl i ke thatfac t . ” I n an O r al D eci s i on, the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) found thatL i ong’ s as y l um app l i cat i on w as t i m e-barred and con cl ud ed thatL i on g – al tho ug h “credibl e ov eral l as a w itn ess” – w as n o t entit led to w ith h o lding o f re m o v al or relief u n d er C A T . T h e B IA a f f irm e d , rea so n in g th a t th e a sy lu m a p p lica tio n w a s tim e -b a rre d a n d L io n g h a d f a iled to s how he had s uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on ort or tur e. T he B I A al s o concl uded thatL i ong had n o t m et his b u rde n o f e stab li sh ing a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture p erse cu ti o n o r t o rtu re b e c a u se th e re w a s in su f f icie n t ev id e n c e in th e re c o rd to e sta b lish th a t itw a s m o re lik e ly3

than n o t th at L ion g w o u ld b e p erse cu ted o r t o rtu red if h e re turn ed to In d o n esia. In su p p o rt o f

th e se c o n c lu sio n s, th e B IA f o u n d th a t L io n g h a d f

a iled to e sta b lish th a t th e re is a p a ttern o r p ra c tice o f

p e rse c u tio n a g a in st C h in e se C h ristia n s o r h o m o se x u a ls in In d o n e sia . T h e B IA o b se rv e d th a t m o st o f th e a rticle s s u b m itt e d c o n c e rn e d v io len c e in cert ai n confl i ctar eas ( J ava orSul aw es i ) . T he B I A al s o t ook j udi ci al not i ce of the 2006 I nt ernat i onal R el i gi ous Fr eedom R eportforI ndones i a and the 2005 C ountryR eporton H um an R i ght s Pr act i ces forI ndones i a. T he B I A s t at ed thatthe 2006 I nt ernat i onal R el i gi ous Fr eedom R eporti ndi cat ed thatm os tof the popul at i on of I ndones i a enj oy ed a h ig h d e g re e o f

re lig io u s f

re e d o m , tha t in sta n c e s o f re lig io u s v io len c e w e re sp o ra d ic in confl i ctar eas , and thatthe governm enthad w or ked t o di ffus e t ens i ons betw een w i th the M u sli m an d C h ri sti an co m m u n it ies. T h e B IA fo u n d that the 2 0 0 5 C o u n tryR ep o rt i ndi cat ed thati ns t ance s of di s cr i m i nat i on and har as s m entof ethni c C hi nes e had de cl i ned compar ed w i th pr evi ous y ear s . T he B I A fur therobs erved thatm ul t i pl e art i cl es i n the r ecor d i ndi cat ed thathom os exual i ty“i s acc ept ed gene r al l yi n I ndones i a” a nd r el i ed on a n o th e r a rticle w h ich o b se rv e d th a t “v e rb a l an d p h y sic a l ab u se o f g a y s is ra re ” in In d o n e sia . F in a lly , the B IA f o u n d th a t L io n g f

a iled to m e e t h is b u rd e n o f p ro o f w ith re g a rd to h is C A T c laim . L io n g tim e lya p p e a led f ro m th e B IA ’s o rd e r d ism iss in g h is a p p e a l. W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew fi nal or der s of the B I A unders ect i on 2424( a) ( 1) of the Im m igrati o n an d N ati o n ali tyA ct, 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a)(1). W h ere , as h ere , the B IA i s s ued a de ci s i on on the mer i t s and nots i m pl ya s um m aryaff i r m ance , w e r evi ew the4

B I A ’ s , n o tth e I J ’ s d e c i s i o n . S e e G a o v . A s h c r o f t , 2 9 9 F . 3 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 1 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) . We m u st u p h o ld th e B IA ’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s if

th e ya re “ su p p o rte d b yre a so n a b le, s u b sta n tial, and pr obat i ve evi dence on the r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e. ” I N S v. E l i as - Z aca r i as , 502 U . S. 478, 481 ( 1992) . W e s houl d fi nd s ubs t ant i al evi dence l acki ng onl yw her e the evi dence “w as s o compel l i ng thatno r eas onabl e fa ct fi ndercoul d fai l t o fi nd the al i en 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.” Id . a t 4 8 3 -8 4 ; s e e a ls o 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(4 )(B ). A s a pr el i m i narym att er , w e obs erve that , on appea l , L i ong has s t at ed thathe i s not co n test ing the B IA ’s de n ial o f h is asy lum ap p li ca ti o n as u n ti m elyfil ed . (P eti ti o n er’s B r. at7. ) A ccor di ngl y , the onl yi s s ues befor e us ar e w hetherthe B I A ’ s fi ndi ngs thatL i ong w as n o t entit led to eith er w ith h o lding o f re m o v al or p rotec ti o n u n d er C A T w ere s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . T he A t t orneyG ener al m us tgr antw i thhol di ng of r emoval i f he “ deci des thatthe al i en’ s l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened” i n the countryof r emoval “bec aus e of the al i en’ s r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal o p in io n .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 (b )(3 )(A ). T h e a lien b e a rs th e b u rd e n o f p ro v in g th a t h e w ill m o re lik e ly th a n n o t f

a c e p e rs e c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f a p ro te c te d g ro u n d . See I N S v. St evi c, 467 U . S. 407, 429- 30 ( 1984) . “To m eetthi s t es t , the al i en mustdemonstr at e that ther e i s a gr eat er - than- fi fty - per centchanc e of pe r s ecut i on upon hi s orherr eturn. ” S enathi raj ah v . IN S , 15 7 F . 3d 21 0, 21 5 (3d C i r. 19 98 ). If the ali en can dem on strat e past per s ecut i on, then thatfi ndi ng w i l l r ai s e a r ebutt abl e pr es um pt i on thatthe al i en’ s “l i fe or5

freedom w ou l d b e t hreat ened i n the futur e . . . . ” 8 C . F . R . § 1 20 8. 16 (b) (1) (i ). P ast per s ecut i on r equi r es pr oof of “ ( 1) one orm or e i nci dent s r i s i ng t o the l evel of per s ecut i on; ( 2) thati s ‘ on acc ountof’ one of the s t atut or i l y - pr ot ect ed gr ounds ; and ( 3) i s comm i t t ed e ith e r b yth e g o v e rn m e n t o r b yf o rc e s th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t is e ith e r u n a b le o r u n w ill in g to contr ol . ” M ul anga v. A s hcr oft, 34 9 F . 3d 12 3, 13 2 (3d C i r. 20 03 ). U nd er our cases ,

“‘ per s ecut i on’ i s an extr eme conceptthatdoes noti ncl ude eve rys or tof tr eatm entour s o c i e tyr e g a r d s a s o f

f e n s i v e . ” F a t i n v . I NS , 1 2 F . 3 d 1 2 3 3 , 1 2 4 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). It encompas s es onl ygr ave ha r m s s uch as “thr eat s t o l i fe, confi nement , t or tur e, and economi 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 orfr eedom. ” I d. at1240. Per s ecut i on “does noti ncl ude al l tr eatm entthatours oci etyr egar ds as unfai r , unj us t , or even unl aw ful oruncons t i tut i onal . ” A hm ed v. A s hcr oft , 341 F. 3d 214, 217 ( 3d C i r . 2003) (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). A n appl i cantw ho has nots uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on m aydemonstr at e thathi s orher l i fe or freedom w ou l d b e t hreat ened i n the futur e i f t he ap pli cant es t abli shes that there i s a patt ern orpr act i ce of

per s ecut i on of a gr oup of per s ons s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed t o the appl i cant on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, or pol i t i cal opi ni on. 8 C . F. R . § 208. 16( b) ( 2) ( i ) . T o qual i fyas a “pa t t ern orpr act i ce, ” the per s ecut i on m us tbe “s y s t emi c, pervas i ve, oror gani zed. ” Li e v. A s chcr oft , 396 F. 3d 530, 5 3 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T o p revai l on a cl ai m un der the C on ven t i on A gainstT orture, an ap pli cant m ust “es t abl i s h thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthathe ors he w oul d be t or tur ed i f r emoved t o t he6

pr opos ed countr yof r emoval . ” 8 C . F. R . § 208. 16( c) ( 2) . See al s o T our e v. A t t orney G ener al of the U ni t ed St at es , 443 F. 3d 310, 317 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . T he s t andar d forr el i ef “has no s ubj ect i ve component , buti ns t ead r equi r es the al i en t o es t abl i s h, byobj ect i ve evi dence thathe i s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef. ” Sevoi an v. A s hcr oft, 2 9 0 F . 3 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ). T he B I A ’ s concl us i on thatL i ong fai l ed t o es t abl i s h pas tper s ecut i on i s s uppor t ed bysubst anti al evidence in the record. O n ap peal, L i on g clai m s that he suffered pa st p erse cu ti o n b ec au se h e w as ro b b ed tw ice a n d v erb all yassa u lt ed . A lth o u g h the h arm des cr i bed byL i ong i s unfor tunat e, i tdoes notr i s e t o the l evel of per s ecut i on. See Li e, 396 F. 3d at536 ( hol di ng thatan ethni c C hi nes e I ndones i an’ s acc ountof tw o i s ol at ed cr i m i nal act s byunknow n as s ai l ant s , w hi ch r es ul t ed onl yi n the theftof s om e per s onal pr opertyand a mi nori nj ury , w as nots uffi ci ent l ys ever e t o cons t i tut e per s ecut i on) . See a lso F a tin , 12 F. 3d at1243 ( “per s ecut i on i s an extr eme conceptthatdoes noti ncl ude e v e ry so rt o f

tr e a tm e n t o u r s o c ie ty re g a rd s a s o f f e n s iv e .” ). In addit i on , w e agree w i th the B IA that Liong has fail ed to est abli sh t hat there i s a

“ p a tte rn o r p ra c tic e ” o f

p e rs e c u tio n o f

C h in e s e C h ri s tia n s o r h o m o s e x u a ls in In d o n e s ia . W e have hel d thatvi ol ence di r ect ed aga i ns tC hi nes e C hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a “doe s not appea rt o be s uffi ci ent l yw i des pr ead a s t o cons t i tut e a pa t t ern orpr act i ce, ” Li e, 396 F. 3d at 53 7 , an d L ion g fa il ed to ad d u ce ev iden ce that w o u ld h av e w arran ted a co n tr ary concl us i on i n t hi s cas e. I ndeed, the 2006 I nt ernat i onal R el i gi ous Fr eedom R eportr el i ed on bythe B I A i ndi cat ed thatthe governm enthad w or ked w i th M us l i m and C hr i s t i an7

co m m u n itylead ers to d iffu se ten sion s in c o n fli ct area s. M o reo v er, th e 2 0 0 5 C o u n try R eporton H um an R i ght s Pr act i ces i ndi cat ed thati ns t ance s of di s cr i m i nat i on and har as s m entof ethni c C hi nes e had de cl i ned compar ed w i th pr evi ous y ear s and al s o that m anyof the chur ches cl os ed i n W es tJ ava r eopene d l at eri n the y ear . A l though L i ong ar gues thatant i - C hi nes e vi ol ence I ndones i a i s cy cl i cal i n natur e – s ugges t i ng that

“ m in o rityg ro u p m e m b e rs” “ h a v e to liv e in c o n tin u a l f e a r o f w h e th e r e th n ic v io len c e w ill r eturn w i th the i nevi t abl e cy cl i cal dow nturn i n the country ’ s economy ” – s uch s pecul at i ve a rg u m e n ts c a n n o t f

o rm th e b a s is o f

a v ia b le p a tte rn o r p ra c tic e c la im . M o re o v e r, b a se d o n th e re c o rd in th is c a se , a re a so n a b le a d ju d ica to r c o u ld concl ude thatL i ong fai l ed t o es t abl i s h thatther e w as s y s t emi c orpervas i ve per s ecut i on of hom os exual s i n I ndones i a. See i d. ( di s cus s i ng w hatcons t i tut es a patt ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on) . Fi nal l y , L i ong has fal l en fa rs hor tof demonstr at i ng thathe i s l i kel yt o be to rt u re d b y , o r w ith th e a c q u ie s c e n c e o f , g o v e rn m e n t o f

f ic ia ls if re m o v e d to In d o n e s ia . S ee 8 C . F . R . § § 1 2 0 8 . 1 6 (c), 1 2 0 8 . 1 8 (a). F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.