2008 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 3-31-2008 

# S uk a m t o 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 . 06-4474

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 va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you 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 va 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 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no va 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 va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it a t ion
" S uk a m t o v

. Att y Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1360. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1360NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS

FOR TH E THI RD CI RCU I T

_______________ N o: 06- 4474

_______________ BU DI S UKAMTO, Pet i t i oner v. AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L US A, R es pondent

_______________ P et i t i on for R eview of an O rder of the U nit ed S t at es D e p a rtm e n t o f

Ju stic e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A N o. A 96- 262- 890) Im m i grat i on Judg e D on al d V . F erl i se

_______________ Subm i t t ed U nder T hi r d C i r cui t L A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 4, 2008 B e f o re : B A R R Y , J O R D A N , a n d H A R D IM A N , C i rcui tJud ges. ( Fi l ed: M ar ch 31, 2008)

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________2

J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge . Budi Sukamt o pe t i t i ons for r e vi e w of the de c i s i on of the Boar d of I mm i gr at i on Appe a l s ( “ BI A” ) de nyi ng hi s a ppl i c at i on for

wi thhol di ng of r e m ova l and r e l i e f unde r the Co nv e nt i onAg a i ns t

To rt ur e ( “ CA T” ) . W e wi l l de ny the pe t i t i onfo r

r e vi e w. I
. Bac k

gr ound B ecau se w e w rite o n ly

f o r th e p arties, w e w ill d iscu ss o n ly th o se f acts relev an t to the pe t i t i onfo r

r e vi e w. Su kamt o i s ac i t i z e n o f I nd on e s i aande thn i c a l l y Ch i ne s e . He a l s o be l ongs t o the Rom an Cathol i c fa i th. He e nt e r e d the Uni t e d St at e s i n June 1999 and f iledh is ap p licatio n f

o r relief in 2 0 0 3 . An I mm i gr at i on Judge ( “ I J ” ) he l d ahe ar i ng on Sukamt o’ s a ppl i c at i on on June 27, 20 05 . At his hear ing, Su kamto te st ifie d that, beginn ing in ele m entary sc ho ol, other stu d en ts b u lliedh im

b ecau se o f

h is C h in ese eth n icity . A cco rd in g to S u k amto , th is hara ss m ent c on ti nu ed throug h h is y ears in coll ege. He al so te st ifie d that i n 1 98 5 p olic e r e f u s e dt o i n v e s t i g at e ar o b b e ry at h i s f ami l y ’ s s t o r e u n l e s s h i s f

ath e r a g r e e dt o p ay

th e m, andthat , a ft e r

hi s fathe r

pa i d the of

fi c e r s , the y

s t i l l fa i l e d t o i nv e s t i gat e the r ob be ry . He f u rth er testif

iedth at in 1 9 8 8 p o lice o f f icers to o kcig arettes an dg aso lin e f ro m th e f am ily s t or e wi tho ut

payi ng fo r

the m , andm ob s l oo t e d ano the r s t or e ow ne d b y

hi s un c l e . He saidth at, also in 1 9 9 8 , m o b s th reaten edto b u rn h is f ath er’s sto re. A g ain in 1 9 9 8 , h e w as, h e said , attack edb y

a g ro up o f

m en w h o triedto ro b h im an dth reaten edth at th ey

w o u ld

“ [k]i l l that

Chi na . ” ( Appe ndi x “ App. ” at 60. ) He e xpl a i ne d that

he e s c a pe d by jum pi ng3

i nt o ane ar

by t a xi . Fi na l l y , Sukamt o c andi dl y a c knowl e dge d t o the I Jthat he wa s not p ersecu tedb ecau se o f

h is relig io u s f

aith . T h e IJ d en iedall o f

S u k amto ’s claim s f

o r relief . A lth o u g h h e f

o u n dS u k amto cred ib le, th e IJ co n clu d edth at m o st o f th e u n f o rtu n ate in cid en ts S u k amto d escrib edd id not oc c ur on a c c ount

of apr ot e c t e d gr ound. Addi t i ona l l y , the I Jfound that none of the i nc i de nt s r os e t o the l e ve l of pe r s e c ut i on, and c onc l ude d that nothi ng i n the r e c or d, incl ud ing the 20 04 Departm ent of S tate Co un tr y Repo rt fo r I nd on es ia , i nd ic at ed that Sukamt o woul d be pe r s e c ut e d on a c c ount of hi s e thni c i ty

by the I ndone s i an gove rnm e nt o r f o rces th e g o v ern m en t w as u n ab le to co n tro l if h e retu rn edto In d o n esia. Su kamto file d a ti m el y

appeal to the BIA, i n w hich he ar gu ed that he was e ntit le d to relief b ecau se th ere is a p attern o r p ractice o f p ersecu tio n ag ain st eth n ic C h in ese C ath o lics in In d o n esia. Sukamt o a l s o ar gue d that the m i s fort

une s he s uffe r e d r os e t o the lev el o f p ersecu tio n . O n S ep tem b er 1 4 , 2 0 0 6 , th e B IA af

f irm edth e IJ, sp ecif

ically c onc l udi ng that

“ we c onc ur

wi th the [I J ] that

s uc h apatt e rn or

pr a c t i c e of pe r s e c ut i on agai nst e thnic Chinese is no t pre se nt throug ho ut Indo nesi a . .. .” (App . at 9.) S u k amto th en f ileda tim ely

p etitio n f o r rev iew .W e h a v e ju risd ictio n u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a ). In its d e c isio n , the B IA e x p re ss ly 1 adopt ed t he I J ’ s r eas oni ng and al s o added i t s ow n anal y s i s . T her efor e, w e may r evi ew b o th th e IJ ’s a n d th e B IA ’s d e c is io n . V oci v. G onz al es , 409 F. 3d 607, 612 ( 3d C i r . 2005) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). T h e B IA ’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t S u k a m to is n o t en tit led to re lief is re v ie w e d f

o r s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . L ie v . A sh c ro ft , 3 9 6 F .3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 4 n .3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T hi s i s a hi ghl y defe r ent i al s t andar d, and t he B I A ’ s deci s i on m u st b e u p h e ld u n les s “ a n y re a so n a b le a d ju d ica to r w o u ld b e c o m p e lled to c o n c lu d e to t he cont r ar y . ” D ia v . A sh c ro ft , 3 5 3 F .3 d 2 2 8 , 2 4 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ). T o estab lish elig ib ility

f o r w ith h o ld in g o f

rem o v al, an ap p lican t m

u st sh o w th at it is “m o re lik ely

th an n o t” th at h e w ill f

ace p ersecu tio n if

h e is rem o v ed . IN

S v. Stevic , 467 U. S. 407, 424 ( 1984) . The a ppl i c ant m us t a l s o s how that

he wa s pe r s e c ut e d on a c c ount of hi s “ r a c e , r e l i gi on, nat i ona l i ty , m e m be r s hi p i n apart i c ul ar

s oc i a l gr oup, or pol i t i c a l opi ni on. ” 8 U. S. C. § 1231( b) ( 3) ( A) . An a ppl i c ant m ay m e e t thi s bur de n by

( 1) dem on strati ng past

pers ec ution, wh ic h rai se s a re bu tt able pres um

ption o f f uture p ersecu tio n , o r (2 ) sh o w in g a clear p ro b ab ility th at h e w ill f

ace f u tu re p ersecu tio n if rem o v ed . Ga bu niya v. A.G. of the Unite d S tates , 4 6 3 F .3 d3 1 6 , 3 2 0 -2 1 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 6 ). The BI A i nt e r

pr e t s pe r s e c ut i on t o i nc l ude “ thr e at s t o l i fe , c onfi ne m e nt , t ort ur e , and ec on om ic re stri ct ions so se vere that they consti tute a threat t o life or free do m .” Fa ti n v. I NS , 12 F. 3d 1233, 1240 ( 3d Ci r . 1993) . To de m ons tr at e a“ we l l
- founde d fe ar of pe r s e c ut i on, ” an a l i e n “ m us t de m ons tr at e . . . both as ubje c t i ve l y ge nui ne fe ar

of pers ec ution andan ob

ject ivel y re as on able po ss ibil it

y of pers ec ution.” Zu beda v. A sh cro ft , 33 3 F . 3d46 3, 46 9 ( 3dCi r . 20 03 ) ( c i t at i onom i tt e d, e m ph a s i s r e m ov e d) . An a ppl i c ant c an s at i s fy

the obje c t i ve pr ong e i the r by s howi ng that

he woul d be s i ngl e d out for pe r s e c ut i on or

that “ the r e i s apatt e rn or

pr a c t i c e i n hi s . . . c ountry of na t i ona l i ty

. . . of pe r s e c ut i on of agr oup of pe r s ons s i m i l ar l y s i t uat e d t o the a

ppl i c ant ” on a c c ount

of one o f th e p ro tectedg ro u n d s. 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 3 (b )(2 ). 4 I I
. Di s c us s i on In h is p etitio n f

o r rev iew , S u k amto d o es n o t arg u e th at h is ex p erien ces in

1 Indo nesi a am ou nt to pers ec ution. Inst ea d, he contends that the I J fai le d to con si der
w h eth er a p attern o r p ractice o f p ersecu tio n ag ain st C h in ese C ath o lics ex ists in I ndone s i a . He furthe r

c ont e nds that

the BI A e rr e d i n de t e rm i ni ng that the I Jm a de s uc h a fi ndi ng. Fi na l l y , he ar gue s that the BI A’ s de c i s i on a ffi rm i ng the I Ji s not s upport e d byT he I J under s t andabl y conce nt r at ed on et hni ci t y , s i nce Sukamt o di r ect ed t he foc us 2 t her e byi ndi cat i ng t hat he had be en t ar get ed bec aus e of hi s et hni ci t y but never beca us e of hi s r el i gi on. 5 substantia l e vidence beca use the re cord es ta

blis hes that s uch a patt er

n o r pra ct ic e does ex ist. We co n clu d e th at th e IJ f o u n dn o p atterno r p ractice o f p ersecu tio n ag ain st C h in ese C ath o lics in In d o n esia, an dth at th e B IA ’s d ecisio n af f irm in g th at f

in d in g is s upport e d by

s ubs t ant i a l e vi de nc e . W e have e xpl a i ne d that “ t o c ons t i t

ut e apatt e rn or pr a c t i c e , the pe r s e c ut i on of the gr oup m us t be s y s t e m i c , pe rva s i ve , or or gani z e d. . . . [And i t m us t be ] c omm i tt e d by

the gove rnm e nt

or for c e s the gove rnm e nt

i s e i the r unabl e or un will ing to con tr ol.” L ie v. A sh cro ft , 396 F.3d53 0, 53 7 (3dCir. 20 05 ) ( inte rnal qu o tatio n m ark s an dcitatio n s o m itted ). Althou gh the I J’ s dec is ion d oes not use the ph ra se “patte rn or pract ic e, ” the IJ d eterm in edth at th e In d o n esian g o v ern m en t w o u ldn o t p ersecu te S u k amto b ecau se o f h is ethn ic it y or fail to protec t him

from peop le wh o w ou ld do so. Beca use, un der L ie , an 2 applic ant s ee king withho lding o f rem ov al on the bas is of a patte rn or pract ic e i s r equire d t o s how that

the fe ar e d pe r s e c ut i on i s “ c omm i tt e d by the gove rnm e nt

or for c e s the g o v ern m en t is u n ab le o r u n w illin g to co n tro l,” it f o llo w s th at th e IJ f

o u n dth at S u k amto co u ldn o t estab lish th e ex isten ce o f a p attern o r p ractice o f

p ersecu tio n ag ain st eth n ic C h in ese C ath o lics in In d o n esia.6

Th e BIA’s deci si on affirm ing the IJ ’s find ing is s up po rt ed by substantia l e vi de nc e . I n L ie , w e af

f irm edth e B IA ’s d ecisio n th at th e p etitio n er “h a[ d ] f ailedto estab lish ... th at th ere [ w as] a ‘p attern o r p ractice’ o f p ersecu tio n o f

C h in ese C h ristian s in Indo nesi a. ” I

d. W hi l e ape t i t i one r ’ s fa i l ur e t o pr ove apatt e rn or pr a c t i c e of pe r s e c ut i on in 1 9 9 9 d o es n o t au to m atically m ean th at su ch can n ev er b e p ro v en , se e Sukwa np utra v. Go nzales , 4 3 4 F .3 d6 2 7 , 6 3 7 n .1 0 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (n o tin g th at L ie doe s not for e c l os e the pos s i bi l i ty

that s ubs e que nt

e ve nt s c oul d e s t abl i s h that apatt e rn or

pr a c t i c e of pe r s e c ut i on ag ain st eth n ic C h in ese C h ristian s ex ists inIn d o n esia), n o th in g in th e reco rdp resen tly b ef o re u s co m

p els u s to d istu rb th e B IA ’s d ecisio n . T h e 2 0 0 4 D ep artm en t o f S tate Country Re port for I ndone s i a , upon whi c h the I Jr e l i e d, l i s t s s om e i nc i de nt s of e thni c and re li giou s c on flic t. Ho wever, it al so no te s s ever al ar ea s i n w hich re lati on s between C h in ese C h ristian s an do th er m em b ers o f In d o n esian so ciety

co n tin u e to im

p ro v e, alb eit slo w ly . F in ally , w ith resp ect to h is claim u n d er th e C A T , S u k amto m u st sh o w th at h e “is
m o re lik ely

th an n o t” to b e to rtu redin th e co u n try o f rem o v al. 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 6 (c)(2 ). The t ort ur e m us t be i nfl i c t e d “ by

or at the i ns t i gat i on of or

wi th the c ons e nt

or ac qu ie sc ence of

a pub li c off

ic ia l or other

pers on ac ti ng in an of

fici al ca paci ty .” Id . at § 2 0 8 .1 8 (a)(1 ). A lth o u g h S u k amto ’s b rief m ak es a p assin g ref

eren ce to h is C A T claim , he fail s t o p oint to any

evidence show ing that he wil l be t orture d b y the I nd on es ian go vernm ent or with its ac qu ie sc ence .7

A cco rd in g ly , w e w ill d en y th e p etitio n f

o r rev iew .