NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 09a0704n.06 No. 09-3120

UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT RUSLI DARWIS, P etitioner , v. ERIC H. HOL DER, JR., Respondent. / O N A P P E A L F R O M T H E B O A RD OF IM M IG RA TIO N A P P EA LS

BEF OR E: G UY , C LA Y, and W HIT E C ir c uit Judg e s. CLAY, Circuit Judge. P et itioner Rusli Darwis appe als the orde r of the B oard of I mmi g ratio n App e a ls ( “ B IA” ), a ff ir min g the imm ig ratio n ju dg e ’s de nia l of his mot ion

fo r a sylum , wi thh old ing of re mov a l, and pr ote c tio n un de r the Con ve nti on Ag a ins t To rt ur e (“ CA T” ). On

a pp e a l, Dar wis only challeng es the de nial of his moti o n for withholdi ng of re moval. For the following

rea sons, we DENY Dar

wis’ petition for re view.

STA TEM EN T OF F AC TS Dar wis, a native and citizen of I ndonesia, arr ived in the United States on Fe bruar y 19, 2005 as a nonimmig rant B -2 visitor with rights to stay in the United States for six months. On Ma y 18, 2006, the Depa

rtm en t of Homela

nd Security

issued a Notice to Appear char g ing D arw is under 8 U. S.C. § 1 22 7( a )( 1)(B) for rem aini ngin t he c ountr y lon g e r t ha n p e rm itt e d. Da

rw is a pp e are d at a hear ing on June 14, 2006, admitted the alleg ations and c oncede d remova bility . I ndonesia wa sI n his a pplication for asylum, Da rwis say s that his w ork, and not a need to flee the Day ak, 1 broug ht him to S uraba

y a and the n to J akar

ta. (J.A. at 188). 2 desig nated a s the country

of re moval. Dar

wis submitt ed an application for asylum, withholdi ng of

remova l, and CAT protec tion on September 6, 2006. A h e a r i n g w a s h e l d b e f

o r e a n Im m i g ra t i o nJ u d ge o nFe b ru ary 9 , 2 0 0 7

. At t h e h ea ri n g, Dar wis testified that he was a native and citizen of I ndonesia and a member of the M ad u ra t ribe. That tribe ha s a long history o f co nflict with the Day ak people . Dar wis lived in the Kalimantan reg ion and used to live and w ork in the city of Sambas. He alleg es that Day ak s regularly attack Ma dure se in t

he are a . D arw is w a s th e wi tne ss t o tw o s uc h la rg e -s c a le a tta c ks . Wh e n h e wa s a

su pe rv iso r at a

me ta l pr oc e ssi ngpla

nt i n Samba s, on e hund

re d D ay a ks att acked the Ma dure se working at t he plant with spea rs, ar rows and ma chete s. Whi le Dar wis emerg ed unscathed, he kne w people who w ere killed in the attack. Anothe r time, the Da y aks attac ked Da

rwis’ mosque killing those who we re una

ble to flee the m osque. Dar wis also saw a Madure se acquaintanc e of his kill ed in b ro a d d ay lig ht b y

a Da y a k a rr ow . D arw is t e sti fi e d th a t he did no t kn ow of any arr e sts a s a re su lt of the se a tta c ks . H e we nt t o the po lic e fo r he lp on c e and wa s or de re d to le a ve the statio n. Da rw is de sc ri be s th e sit

uatio n in 20 01 : “ Th e Da

y a k k ill e d ma

ny Ma du re se and ro bb e d a nd burn e d M a dure se businesses. They

treated my

people sav agely . They

would shoot people with arr ows or kill them with machete s. They would deca pitate people a

nd run ar ound with their victim’s heads.” (J.A. at 18 7) . D arw is t e sti fi e d th a t he wa s n e ve r b e a te n, arr e ste d, kid na pe d or he ld hos ta g e by

the Da y a ks

. Dar wis left S ambas and moved t o first Surabay a and then J akart a beca use he “wa s chase d by these Da y aks.” ( J .A. at 61). He spe nt four y ear s in these two cities. He testified that he wa s 1 in dang er in both cities but ac knowledg ed that he ha d no problems with any members of the Day ak3

tribe in either c ity . Dar

wis testified that the Da

y ak may targ et him beca

use he “ was a lea der” and “would provoke the other Ma duras to fig ht back.” (J.A. at 62 ). His s tatus as a lea der stems fr om his role as a

supervisor at the metal proc essing plant. Dar wis further

testified that he c ame to the United S tates t o save himself. He ha s family back i nIn d o n e s i a

t h a th e t e s t i f

i e d w o u l d b e i n d an g e r “ i f t h e D aya k kn o w s . ” ( J

. A

. a t6 3 )

. P r e s u m a b l y, he me ans if

the Da y a k k no ws that th e fa

mil y is re la te d to D arw is. He fe ars re tur nin g to I nd on e sia beca use he mig ht be killed and states that he would not be safe any place in the country

. Da rw is h a s su

pp or te d h is con ten tio n o f v iol e nc e in t he Ka lim anta

n r e g ion wi th m ult ipl e outside repor

ts. The B I A acknow ledg ed that “ther e is e vidence that relations between Ma durese and indige nous Day aks remain poor (at least i n centr al and wester n Kalimantan) .” (J.A. at 4). Howe ver, the Gover

nment of Indonesia “ officia lly promotes ra cial and e thnic toleranc e” Id . The off icial Kalimantan g overnme nt regulations require the two tribes to live side-by -side in pea ce. Th e imm ig ratio n ju dg e iss ue d an or a l dec isi on de nying Da rw is’ a pp lic a tio ns and

fi nd inghim

r e m o v a b l e . D ar w i s a p p e a l e d t h e i m m i g r a t i o n j u d g e ’ s d e c i s i o n , an d o nS e p t e m b e r

8 , 2 0 0 8 , t h e B IA dismiss ed the a

ppeal. The BIA cor

rec ted a p ro cedural def

ect in its decision and a ffirme d the de c isi on on Janu ary 13 , 2 00 9. Da

rw is f ile d a pe tit ion fo r r e vie w o f t

he B I A’ s d e cis io n with

thi s Court on Febr

uary 5, 2009. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) (1).

DI SCU SSIO N I. Stand ard of Review Since t he B I A d id

n o t s u mm ar il y

a f f ir m o r a d o p t t h e im mi g r a ti o nju d g e ’ s r e a s o n in g a nd provided a

n explanation for its decision, we r eview the BIA’s dec ision as t h e fi n al age ncy deter mination. Ilic-Leev. Muk asey , 5 0 7 F

. 3 d

1 0 4 4 , 1 0 4 7 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 7 )

. In r e v i e w i n g t h e B IASince we find that Dar wis’ claim for withholdi ng of removal fails wit hout consideringany 2 lack of corr oboration, we need not deter mine whether the i mmigration judge was c orre ct in requiring corr oboration. 4 decision, i ssues of pure law ar e re viewed de novo. Ramaj v. Gonzales , 466 F.3d 520, 527 ( 6th Cir. 20 06 ). F a c tua l f

ind ing s, ho we ve r, mus t be a ff ir me d if su bs tanti a l e vid e nc e su

pp or ts tho se deter minations. Ceraj v . Mukase y , 5 11 F .3 d 5 83 , 5 88 (6 th C ir . 2 00 7) . U nd e r t his sta nd ard , “ we wi ll not r ever se those finding s ‘unless any rea sonable a djudicator would be compelled to conc lude to the contra ry .’” Sin g

h v . G o n z a les , 4 5 1 F. 3d 400, 403 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)( 4)(B )). B e fo re the imm ig ratio n ju dg e and the B I A, Da

rw is p ur su ed an applic a tio n f or a sylum , withholding of r emoval and Conve ntion Aga inst Torture prote ction. On appe al, Dar wis does not contest the B I A’s dis m i s s al o f his applications for a sy lum or protection under the Convention Ag ainst Torture. II. Ana lys is Dar wis’ burde n is to show that it i s more likely than not that if he we re r emoved to Indonesia, his lif e or fr e e do m w ou ld b e thr e a te ne d be c a us e he is ethn ic Ma dure se . 8 U. S.C. § 1 23 1( b) (3 ); see I.N .S . v. Ste v ic , 4 6 7 U

. S

. 4 0 7 , 4 2 9

- 3 0 ( 1 9 8 4 )

. D ar w i s c anm e e th i s b u r d e ni nt w o d i f f e r e n tw a y s. First, he c an show pa st persec ution on a protec ted g round, which cre ates a rebuttable presumption that his life or fr eedom would be threatened if he returned to his native countr y . Alternatively , he

c an d e mon str a te a

futur e thr e a t to his lif

e or fr e e do m on ac c ount of a pr ote c te d g ro un d. On

a pp e a l, Dar wis attacks t h re e finding s of the B I A, namely that Dar wis did not suffer pa st persec ution, that Dar wis did not establish a pattern a nd prac tice of pe rsec ution of ethnic Madur ese in Indonesia, a nd that Dar wis did not supply

sufficie nt corrobor ation. 25

A past t hreat to life or fre edom re quires the a pplicant to have suf

fer ed past pe rsec ution on

acc ount of rac e, re ligion, nationality , membership in a particula r social gr oup, or political opinion. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)( 1)(i). I f the a pplicant succ essfully

demonstrates a

past threat to life or fr e e do m, i t c re a te s a

pr e su mpt ion

that hi s li fe or

fr e e do m w ill be thr e a te ne d in the fu tu re. I n th is

c a se , th e B I A f

ound that D arw is h a d f

a ile d to show that he wa s per se c ute d or that any a tta c ks on

him

wer e on ac count of a

protec ted g round. Pe rs e c uti on

is “a n extr e me c on c e pt that doe s not inc lud e e ve ry so rt of tr e a tme nt o ur

so c ie ty reg ards as off

ensive.” Al i v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 6 6 F. 3 d 4 0 7 , 4 1 0 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) ( qu o t i n g Gh aly v . I NS , 58 F.3d 1425, 1431 ( 9th Cir. 1995)). To show pe rsec ution, “[i ]t is not sufficient that the applica nt has been subje cted to indiscriminate abuse . . . Instead, the a pplicant must establish that he or she w as specific ally targ eted by the g overnme nt f or abuse based on one of the statutorily protec ted g rounds.” Gilaj v. Gonzales , 40 8 F .3 d 2 75 , 2 85 (6 th C ir . 2 00 5) ; se e als o Pi lic a v . A sh c ro ft , 388 F.3d 941, 950 (6th Cir. 2 0 0 4 ) (c iting with appr oval a B I A opinion that defined pe rsec ution as “the infliction of ha rm or su ff e ri ng by the g ov e rnme nt, or pe rs on s a go ve rnme nt is unw ill ingor un a ble to c on tr ol, to

overc ome a c hara cter istic of the victim”). We believe that the r ampant viol ence in the reg ion around 2001 may be suff icient to show that the ac tions were taken by a group the g overnme nt was unable to control. Unlike in Al i , wher e this Court specifically noted that a State Depa rtment repor

t reve aled no infor

mation of perse cution of me mbe rs of

the pe tit ion e r’ s p oli tic a l pa rt y , D arw is h a s c ome fo rw ard wi th v ari ou s d oc uments hig hli g hti ngvio le nc e be tw e e n th e Da y a k a nd M a d u r e s e c o mm

u n i t i e s . A n “ Ar

me d Co nf lic ts R e po rt ” by Project Ploughsha

res f ound that in 2001 “brutal vi o l en ce er u pted betwe en the Da y ak and Ma dure se e thn ic g ro up s on the larg e I nd on e sia n is land of B or ne o, ” no te d “ re po rt s o f atr oc iti e s, wi th6

g ov e rnme nt s e c ur ity

fo rc e s una

ble to sto p the fi g hti ng ,” and de te rm ine d th a t a t le a st 1 ,0 00 pe op le died. (J.A. at 118-120). Se e als o I nte rn a tio na l Cr isi s G roup Re po rt , “ Com mun a l V iol e nc e in I ndonesia: L esson Fr om Kalimantan.” ( J .A. at 126-62)

. Dar wis’ problem with his claim for perse cution is that very littl e evide nce sug g ests that the Day ak we re intentionally targ eti n g h i m . His application states that he “wa s chase d by Day ak assailants many

times in Kalimantan and was forc ed to r un in f ear .” (J.A. at 188). He testified tha t he be lie ve d th a t th e Da

y a k d id n ot l ike hi m beca us e he wa s p ro min e nt t

hr ou g h h is j ob a s a

su pe rv iso r. Th e B I A f

e lt that Darw is w a s n ot p e rs e c ute d b e c a us e he re fe re nc e d o nly

tw o in c ide nts , and in both instances, he esca ped unscathed. “We do not find that the re spondent established that any harm he himself may have suffer ed, even i n the agg reg ate, was of such sever ity as t o rise to the level of pe rsec ution.” (J.A. at 4). This conclusion of the B I A is amply supported in the re cord. F ur the rm or e , e ve n if Da

rw is wa s pe rs e c ute d in the pa st, thi s fi nd ing on ly ra ise s a re bu tta ble presumption that his life or fr eedom would be threatened. Thap v. Mukase y , 5 44 F .3 d 6 74 , 6 81 (6 th Cir. 2008); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1) . That pre sumpt i o n i s re b u t t ed by a finding that the applica nt “could avoid a future threat to his or her life or f ree dom by

reloc ating to another pa

rt of the pr oposed country of re moval.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)( 1)(i)( B)

. I n this case, the pr esumption is easily rebutted by Dar wis’ four y ear s fre e f

ro m et h n i c v iolence in two other cities in the country . Whil e he ma y have be en for ced to f

lee Sam b as , h e remained in the country for f our y ear s in relative pe ace and safe ty . I n Almuhtaseb v. Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 743, 750 (6th Cir. 2006), t his Court found t hat the fa ct a petitioner w ho had bee n direc tly targ eted in the West Ba nk stay ed ther e fo r s i x m o re y ear s “indicate s that her situation in the W est Ba nk was not suffic iently

g rave to constitute persec ution.”The 2005 State De partment Country Report on Human R ights Prac tices noted: “In Central 3 Kaliman t an , re l at i o n s b et we en i n d i gen o u s Da y ak s an d et h n i c M adu re s e transmigra nts remained poor in the wake of 2001 interethnic violence. Howeve r, at least 30 thousand to 57 thousand displaced e thn ic Ma dure se ha d r e tur ne d to Ce ntr a l K a lim anta n b y y ear’s en d. De sp ite int e re thn ic te ns ion s, local ele ctions were order ly and re latively

peac eful. Relation s betwee n the two g roups also re mained po or in Wes t Ka lim anta

n, wh e re fo rm e r re sid e nts of Ma dure se de sc e nt we re ob stru cte d i n t he ir attempts to recla im their proper ty .” (J.A. at 103).

7 The only evidenc e that Dar

wis would be in dange r of a n attack by

the Dayak in a diff

ere nt reg ion of I ndonesia is his own testimony . He testified that he “thinks” there are problems betwe en the Dayaks and the Madura outside of the Ka limantan reg ion and that he f elt in dang er w hen living in S ur a ba y a and Jaka rt a . He wa s n e ve r atta c ke d in tho se oth e r c iti e s, ne ve r w itn e sse d a n e thn ic a lly motivated attac k o n a m em b er of the Madura

tribe in either c ity , and submitted no outside substantiation that this is a nation-w ide problem. Da rwis’ a ctual experienc e outside the Ka limantan reg ion rebuts any

presumption cre ated by

a showing of past per secution. F or the same re a so n, Darwis ’ cla im o f a patte rn or pr a c tic e of

pe rs e c uti on

of Ma dure se people must also fa il. I n order to show a future threat to his l ife or f ree dom on acc ount of a prote cted g ro un d, Da

rw is n e e d n ot p ro ve that h e wou ld be sin g le d o ut f or vio le nc e up on

re tur nin g . I t is sufficie nt if he “e stablishes that in that country there is a pattern or

prac tice of pe rsec ution of a g roup of pe rs on s si mil arl y

sit uate d to the a

pp lic ant. ” 8 C.F .R. § 120 8. 16 (b )( 2)

. Th e B I A’ s f ind ing s o n th is fr on t are a mpl y

su pp or te d b y the re c or d d

ue to t he pr e se nt t e ns e of the re qu ir e me nt. Whil e Da rw is submitt ed substantial evidenc e about tro u ble betwe en the Da y aks and Ma durese , this information

a ll s ho ws tha

t te ns ion s h e ig hte ne d a

ro un d 2 00 1, wh e n n ot c oinci den tally the e ve nts Da

rw is persona lly

witnessed occ urre d. Whil e tens i o n s re m ain hig h, wide-sc ale violenc e is no long er a problem. I n part, the de clining vio l en ce i s beca use the Madur ese w ere eff ectively forc ed fr om 38

Sa mba s and

the surr ound ing are a . Whil e Da rw is like ly c ou ld not re tur n to Samb a s, the re c or d ampl y supports a dete rmination that he ca n safe ly return to Indonesia. Dar wis’ only evidenc e to combat the rea sonable finding of the B I A is his own testimony that he still believed he w as in d an ger af t er le aving Sambas. Whil e the immigr ation judge did find Da rw is c re dib le , h is m e re a sse rt ion of fe ar is no t su ff

ic ie nt to me e t hi s b ur de n “ that it is m or e lik e ly than not that he

. . . will be perse cuted upon return” to I ndonesia. Kaba v. Mukase y , 546 F.3d 741, 751 (6 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) ( qu o tati o n s an d c it a ti o n s o mi tt e d )

. T h is s ta n d ar d is mo r e s tr in g e n t th an the standard f or asylum, which provides that a petitioner ne ed only show a “ well-founde d fea r.” Eve n under the lower standard for asylum, Dar wis would need to provide objective support f or his own testimony that he felt fea

r of Day ak attacks elsewhe re in Indonesia. Se e Pi lic a v . A sh c ro ft , 388 F.3d 941, 950 (6th Cir. 2004) (“ A well-f ounded fe ar o f persecution thus has both a subjec tive and an ob je c tiv e c omp on e nt: an a lie n mu st a ctu ally fe ar t hat he wi ll b e pe rs e c ute d u po n r e tur n to his country , and he must pre sent evidenc e esta blishing an ‘objec tive situation’ under w hich his fea r ca n be dee med re asonable .”). N either D arw is nor his outside sources show pr oblems betwee n the Madura and Day ak that today rise to the l evel of perse cution. Whil e Da

rwis testified that the Da

y ak and Madur a tribes have problems outside of West Ka limantan, only in that reg ion has there been the larg e -s c a le a tta c ks that ma y a mou nt t o pe rs e c uti on

be c a us e the g ov e rnme nt a

rgua bly is una ble to control the violenc e. The confine d location of the te nsion, as we l l as t h e appare nt thawing of the conflict, mea

ns that Darw is cannot show a pattern or pr actice of per secution of Ma durese throug hout I ndonesia. CO NC LU SION For the re asons set for

th above, we DENY Dar

wis’ petition for re view.