A ft erexami ni ng the 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 o gr antthe part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe 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 ent w i th 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 

### Ju ly26,2007 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

DE DY S I M BO L ON; L UKI NE R N AP I T UP UL U,

P et i t i on ers , v. A LB ER TO R. G O N ZA LES, U n ited S tate s A tto rn e yG e n e ra l,

R e sp o n d e n t. N o. 06- 9579 ( N os . A 97- 190- 912 & A 97- 190- 913) ( P e t i t i o n fo rRe v i e w)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e T AC HA , C h ie f J u d g e , M UR P HY , and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es.

D edySi m bol on, as l ead pe t i t i oner( pet i t i oner ) , t ogetherw i th hi s w i fe, L u k iner N ap itu p u lu, seek s rev iew o f a fin al ord er o f re m o v al i ssu ed b ythe B o ard of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( B I A ) aff i r m i ng the deni al of hi s appl i cat i ons for w i thhol di ng of r emoval underthe I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ctand pr ot ect i onPet i t i oner ’ s as y l um appl i cat i on w as deni ed as unt i m el y , a dec i s i on not 1 c h a lle n g e d in th e in s ta n t p e titio n a n d o n e b e y o n d o u r r e v ie w . Tse vegm i d v. A sh c ro ft , 3 3 6 F . 3 d 1 2 3 1 , 1 2 3 4 -35 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). -2- underthe U ni t ed N at i ons C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( C A T ) . O urj ur i s di ct i on a ri s e s u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a ), T s e v eg m idv . A s h c r o

ft, 336 F. 3d 1231, 1235 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ), a n d w e a ffir m . P et i t i on er, w ho adm i t s r em ov abil i ty , argued t o the I m m i grat i on Judg e (I J) that , as an I ndones i an C hr i s t i an, he has fac ed per s ecut i on i n hi s hom el and and s houl d be gr ant ed r el i ef. T he I J deni ed w i thhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef unde r 1 the C A T , fi ndi ng thatpet i t i onerhad fa i l ed t o s how t hathe w oul d fac e a l i kel i hood of per s ecut i on ort or tur e s houl d he r eturn t o I ndones i a. A dm i n. R . at 5 8 -59 . P eti ti o n er a p p ea led to the B IA w h ich a d o p ted a n d affirm ed the IJ’s di s pos i t i on i n a br i ef w r i t t en opi ni on. W e thus r evi ew t he B I A ’ s deci s i on, c o n s u ltin g th e IJ ’s e x p la n a tio n if n e c e s s a ry. See, e. g. , Uan reroro v. G onz al es , 4 4 3 F . 3 d 1 1 9 7 , 1 2 0 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). O n appea l , w e r evi ew the age ncy ’ s l egal deci s i ons de novo, Fe rn a n d ez-Va rg a s v . A sh c ro ft , 394 F. 3d 881, 884 ( 10th C i r . 2005) , and the fa ctual d eterm ination o f w h ethe r pe ti ti o n er h as d em o n str ated p ast p erse cu ti o n o r a w e ll- fo u n d e d fe a r o f

f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n fo r s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e , s ee I NS v. E l i as - Zacar i as , 5 0 2 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 (1 9 9 2 ). In o rd e r fo r p e tit io n e r to p re v a il, th is c o u r tm u s tb e c o n v i n c e d th a t“ th e e v i d e n c e n o to n l y sup p o rts [r ever s al ] but compels i t . ” E l i as - Zacar i as , 5 0 2 U .S . a t 4 8 1 n .1 .B a se d o n th e re c o rd , p e tit io n e r d id n o t su b m it a s e p a ra te a p p e llate b rie f to 2 th e B IA . W e c o n c lu d e , as d id R e sp o n d e n t, th a t th e “ R e a so n s fo r A p p e a l” a tta c h e d to h is n o tic e o f a p p e a l c o n s titu te s p e titio n e r’ s B IA a p p e lla te b ri e f. See B r . forR es p’ tat20 ( ci t i ng pet i t i oner ’ s not i ce of appea l i n r efe r ence t o the

(c o n tin u e d ...) -3- P e tit io n e r m a k e s tw o a rg u m e n ts. F irst, h e a rg u e s th a t th e IJ fa iled to d e ter m in e w h e th e r h e su ffe re d p a st p e rse c u tio n , an d w h e th e r in ter n a l re lo c a tio n to an o ther p art of

Ind o n esia w as p o ssible, th u s ren d ering erro n eo u s the B IA ’s s ubs equentaff

i r m ance of thes e gr ounds . Second, pet i t i onercont ends thathe w as the vi ct i m of pas tper s ecut i on and thatboth he and hi s w i fe a r e thus el i gi bl e for w i thhol di ng of r emoval or , al t ernat i vel y , thattheys houl d be gr ant ed r el i ef pur s uantt o the C A T . W e conc l ude thatpet i t i onerfor fei t ed the fi r s tar gum entby n o t p re se n tin g it t o th e B IA a n d th a t p e tit io n e r’s se c o n d a rg u m e n t is leg a lly in a d e q u a te to ju s tif

yth e re q u e s te d re lie f. I n or dert o pr es erve i s s ues forr evi ew bythi s cour t , pet i t i onerw as r equi r ed t o r ai s e hi s cont ent i ons t o the B I A orr i s k havi ng them di s m i s s ed forl ack of ju ri s d ic tio n b a s e d o n a fa ilu re to e x h a u s t a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d ie s . See Nguyen v. I NS , 991 F. 2d 621, 623 n. 3 ( 10th C i r . 1993) . B eca us e pet i t i onerfai l ed t o r ai s e the i s s ues r efl ect ed i n hi s fi r s tar gum entbefor e the B I A , he i s barr ed fr om r ai s i ng th e m h e re . Pet i t i oner ’ s “appe l l at e br i ef” t o the B I A cons i s t s of onl ytw o pages of g en era l al lega ti o n s an d is virtu all yd ev o id o f a n yfa ctua l r efere n ce s to p eti ti o n er’s ca se. A d m in. R . at 2 0 -21 . B efo re the B IA , p eti ti o n er a rgu ed that 1 ) th e IJ’s 2( . . . cont i nued) 2 a rg u m e n ts p re s e n te d b yp e titio n e r t o th e B IA ). -4- deni al of hi s appl i cat i ons w as cl ear l yerr oneous ; 2) hi s t es t i m onys houl d have been gi ven gr eatw ei ght ; 3) t he I J fai l ed t o adequa t el ycons i derthe r ecor d; 4) pet i t i onerhad pr oven pas tper s ecut i on or , i n the al t ernat i ve, futur e per s ecut i on; a n d 5 ) t h e IJ ’s e rr o rs w e re c u m u la tiv e . Id. N ow her e i n hi s “br i ef” di d pet i t i oner chall eng e t he IJ’ s purport ed fa i l ure t o m ake d et erm i nati on s r egardi ng past per s ecut i on orr el ocat i on. Pet i t i oner , ci t i ng Du la n e v . I NS , 4 6 F . 3 d 9 8 8 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ), ar g u e s th a t, be c a u se th e B IA a d d re ss e d th e p a st p e rse c u tio n iss u e a s w e ll a s th e r e l o c a t i o n i s s u e , th i s c o u r th a s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w th o s e a r g u m e n t s . We d is a g re e . A s a gene r al m att er , thi s courtw i l l notent er t ai n ar gum ent s thathave not b e e n p re s e n te d to a n d ru le d u p o n b yth e B IA . D ul ane , 46 F. 3d at996. I n D ul ane , w e a llo w e d th e p e tit io n e r to sp e c ifica llya rg u e o n a p p e a l th a t h e w a s e n tit led to a s y lu m b e c a u s e b o th th e IJ a n d th e B IA h a d ru le d o n th a t p re c is e fo rm o f re lie f. A t i ssu e w as n o t w h ethe r par t i cular a rg u m e n ts i n s uppor tof thatform of r el i ef had bee n exhaus t ed. A ccor di ngl y , w e vi ew ed i tas bei ng s i gni fi cant– and i ndeed di s pos i t i ve – thatthe B I A had t aken the i ni t i at i ve and rul ed on the form of r el i ef ( i . e. , as y l um ) t hatt he pet i t i oneral l egedl yfor fei t ed bynotr ai s i ng i ti n hi s m ot i on to re o p e n .-5-

In c o n tra st, p e tit io n e r’s a rg u m e n ts a re a t issu e h e re ; th e re is n o d isp u te regar ding t he n ature of the r equ est ed rel i ef. W e m ustdeterm i ne w hethertho se ar gum ent s have be en admi ni s tr at i vel yexhaus t ed. Pet i t i oneradvanc es a new a rg u m e n t in th is c o u rt fo r re v e rsa l th a t is p re m ise d u p o n th e IJ’ s a lleg e d fa ilu re to m ake de t erm i nat i ons r egar di ng pas tper s ecut i on and r el ocat i on. T hi s ar gum ent w as nei therr ai s ed befor e the B I A norrul ed on byi t . A ccor di ngl y , thi s ar gum ent is fo rfe ite d o n a p p e a l. N guyen , 991 F. 2d at623 n. 3. A s fo r P e tit io n e r’s se c o n d a rg u m e n t re g a rd in g a lleg e d p a st p e rse c u tio n , in or dert o m er i tw i thhol di ng of r emoval , an appl i cantm us tdemonstr at e thathe fac es “the cl earpr obabi l i tyof per s ecut i on” bec aus e of hi s “r ace , r el i gi on, n a tio n a lity , m e m b e rsh ip in a p a rticu lar so c ial g ro u p , o r p o lit ica l o p in io n ” sh o u ld h e b e re tu rn e d to a s p e c ifie d c o u n tr yo u ts id e o f th e U n ite d S ta te s . Tse vegm i d, 336 F. 3d at1235; 8 C . F. R . § 1208. 16( b) . I f an a ppl i cantcan de m ons tr at e thathe has s uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on, a r ebutt abl e pr es um pt i on of futur e per s ecut i on ar i s es . T he r es pondentcan r ebutthi s pr es um pt i on bys how i ng ei therthat ci r cumst ance s i n the pr opos ed countryof r emoval have f undament al l ychange d, s ee i d. § 1208. 16( b) ( 1) ( A ) , orthatr el ocat i on t o anotherpartof the pr opos ed c o u n tr yw o u ld b e re a s o n a b le , s e e id . § 1 2 0 8 .1 6 (b )( 1 )( B ). I n or dert o es t abl i s h pas tper s ecut i on, the compl ai ned- of ac t i ons m us tbe e x tr e m e . S e e Ko r a b l i n a v . I NS , 158 F. 3d 1038, 1044 ( 9th C i r . 1998) ( “Per s ecut i on i s defi ned as an extr eme conceptthatdoes noti ncl ude eve rys or tofT h e a tta c k o n p e titio n e r’ s b u s in e s s o c c u rr e d o u ts id e o f b u s in e s s h o u rs . 3 Pet i t i onerdi d notknow w ho w r ecke d hi s s t or e othert han t o i dent i fyt hem as “ th o se y o u n g p e o p le,” a n d d id n o t en ter th e b u sin e ss to a ss e ss th e d a m a g e o r to d e t e r mi n e wh e th e rr o b b e r yma yh a v e b e e n t h e mo t i v e fo rt h e a t t a c k . Ad mi n . R. 80- 83, 96. -6- tr eatm entthatours oci etyr egar ds as offe ns i ve” ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ) . T he tr eatm entm us tgo bey ond m er e har as s m ent , act s of per s onal h o s tilit y , o r c ri m in a l b e h a v io r. See Va tu lev v . A sh c ro ft , 354 F. 3d 1207, 1209- 10 ( 10th C i r . 2003) ( not i ng t hat“[t ] hr eat s al one gene r al l ydo notcons t i tut e ac tual p e rse c u tio n ,” a n d th a t “e th n ic s lu rs a n d p e ttyv a n d a lism ,” a lth o u g h “ o d iu s,” fe ll

“ fa r sh o rt” o f

e v id e n c e th a t w o u ld c o m p e l a fin d in g o f p e rse c u tio n ); Tam asMer cea v . R eno , 22 2 F . 3d 41 7, 42 4 (7t h C i r. 20 00 ) ( no t i ng that “act i on s m ustri se above the l evel of m er e har as s m entt o cons t i tut e per s ecut i on” ( i nt ernal quot at i on m a rk s o m itte d )) . A s e v id e n c e to su p p o rt h is c laim o f p a st p e rse c u tio n , p e tit io n e r a ss e rts th a t, on m or e than one oc cas i on, M us l i m s t hr ew r ocks athi s chur ch w hi l e s ervi ces w e re in p ro g re ss ; th a t th e c o n g re g a tio n e v e n tu a llyw a s fo rc e d to m e e t in p riv a te hom es ; thatanotherC hr i s t i an chur ch i n the ar ea w as att acke d caus i ng per s onal i nj uryand l os s of l i fe; and thathi s bus i nes s had bee n att acke d. Pet i t i oner 3 s pecul at ed thatM us l i m s w er e r es pons i bl e fort he att acks . A dm i n. R . at77- 83. T he I J concl uded thatpet i t i onerhad fa i l ed t o s how a r el i gi ous m ot i ve for the att ack on hi s bus i nes s , and that , w hi l e ther e cont i nue t o be outbr eaks ofB ec au se p eti ti o n er fail ed to es tablish p ast p erse cu ti o n , itw as u n n ec essa ry 4 forthe B I A t o di s cus s the pos s i bi l i tyof r el ocat i on. R el ocat i on i s onl yan i s s ue aft era pet i t i oneres t abl i s hes pas tper s ecut i on and i s t hen the bene fi ci aryof the re b u tta b le p re s u m p tio n o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n . See 8 C . F . R . § 1 2 0 8 . 1 6 (b)(1 )(B ).

-7- v io len c e a m o n g C h ristia n s a n d M u slim s in In d o n e sia , p e tit io n e r h a d fa iled to s how thatthe “l ack of compl et e pr ot ect i on [bythe I ndones i an governm entfor C hr i s t i ans and thei rchur ches ] w oul d expos e hi m t o a l i kel i hood of per s ecut i on or t or tur e upon r eturn t o I ndones i a. ” A dm i n. R . at58. A s m ent i oned above , the B IA affirm ed these conclusi on s. W e conc l ude thatpet i t i oner ’ s evi dence does notr i s e t o the l evel r equi r ed fora s how i ng of per s ecut i on butr atheri s an exa m pl e of di s cr i m i nat i on on the b a s is o f re lig io n a n d th u s is in s u ffic ie n t to e s ta b lis h e n title m e n t to re lie f. See Kor abl i na , 158 F. 3d at1044. Subst ant i al evi dence i n the r ecor d s uppor t s the B I A ’ s w i thhol di ng- of- r emoval det erm i nat i on. 4 In o rd e r to sa tisf

yth e C A T ’s r e q u ire m e n ts, p e tit io n e r m u st e sta b lish th a t it is m o re lik e ly th a n n o t th a t h e w o u ld b e to rt u re d if re tu rn e d to In d o n e s ia . See Fer r y v. G onz al es , 4 5 7 F .3 d 1 1 1 7 , 1 1 3 0 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); 8 C .F .R . § 1208. 16( c) ( 4) . A cl ai m of pr obabl e t or tur e undert he C A T i s l i m i t ed t o “pai n or s uffe r i ng [] i nfl i ct ed byoratthe i ns t i gat i on of orw i th the cons entor acqui es cenc e of a publ i c off i ci al orotherper s on act i ng i n an off i ci al capa ci ty . ” Ferry , 4 5 7 F .3 d a t 1 1 3 0 (q u o tin g 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 8 (a )( 1 ) ( e m p h a s is o m itte d )) . T her e i s no evi dence i n t he r ecor d thatpet i t i onerhas everbeen ha r m ed byt he-8-

I ndones i an governm entort hati ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthatt or tur e bea r i ng the n ec essa ryn ex u s to p erso n s ac ti n g in an o ffici al ca p ac ityw o u ld o cc u r i f h e w ere r eturned t o I ndones i a. T he B I A ’ s deci s i on as t o the unava i l abi l i tyof C A T r el i ef is s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd . T he p et i t i on for r eview i s DENI ED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

J er om e A . H ol m es C i r cui tJ udge