2009 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 3-3-2009 

# S a songk o 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 . 07-2736

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_2009

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 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 " S as on gko v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1791. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/17911 NOT 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- 2736 DAMAR S AS ONGKO ,

Pet i t i oner v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

____________________________________ O n P eti ti o n fo r R ev iew o f a n O rde r o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls A gencyN o. A 96 167 196 Im m i grat i on Judg e: D on al d V i ncen tF erl i se

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

February18, 2009 B efor e: B A R R Y , SM I T H and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ar ch 3, 2009)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM D amarSas ongko 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 ) , w hi ch di s m i s s ed hi s appea l fr om an I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( I J ’ s ) fi nalSas ongko fi l ed tw o pr evi ous as y l um appl i cat i ons . Sas ongko, w ho w as appar ent l yt he 1 v ict im o f u n tru stw o rth yp rep are rs, test ifi ed that h e sig n ed b o th o f th em w h en theyw ere bl ank, and he w as unaw ar e of thei rcont ent s . W e nee d notr eac h t he i s s ue of w hethert he I J pr oper l ycons i der ed i ncons i s t enci es betw een Sas ongko’ s t es t i m onyand the cont ent s of t hes e ea r l i erappl i cat i ons , as t he I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evidence w i t ho ut r eference t o the earl i er appl i cat i on s. 2 r emoval or der . W e w i l l denyt he pet i t i on. I . S a s o n g k o , a n a t i v e a n d c i t i z e n o f I n d o n e s i a , e n t e r e d th e Un i t e d S t a t e s i n 2 0 0 1 . He w as pl ace d i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs i n 2003. I n an appl i cat i on fi l ed i n 2004, Sas ongko 1 s oughtas y l um and r el at ed r el i ef c l ai m i ng thathe had be en per s ecut ed, and w oul d be per s ecut ed, on acc ountof hi s hom os exual i t y . T he I J found thatSas ongko w as not cr edi bl e, t hathi s as y l um cl ai m w as unt i m el y , thathe had f i l ed a f r i vol ous cl ai m , thathe w as i nel i gi bl e forvol unt arydepartur e, and thathe had notm ethi s bur den of s how i ng t hat h e w as e li g ible fo r reli ef p u rsua n t t o the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re (C A T ). T h e B IA rever sed t he IJ’ s fi nd i ng s that the clai m w as unti m el y , that the ap pli cat i on w as fr i vo l ou s, a n d th a t S a so n g k o w a s in e lig ib le f o r v o lu n tar yd e p a rtu re . T h e B IA , h o w e v e r, ex p licitly adopt ed and a ffi r m ed the I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng, and agr eed thatSas ongko had n o t m e t h is b u rd e n o f

s h o w in g th a t h e w a s lik e ly to b e to rt u re d a s re q u ir e d f o r C A T re lie f. T h e B I A d i s m i s s e d t h e a p p e a l , b u tg r a n t e d v o l u n t a r y d e p a r tu r e . S a s o n g k o f i l e d a t i m e l y, c o u n s e le d , p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w .T h e p ro v isio n s o f th e R e a l ID A c t o f

2 0 0 5 re g a rd in g re v iew o f a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty 2 fi ndi ngs do notappl yt o cas es s uch as thi s one, w her e the as y l um appl i cat i on w as fi l ed l ong befor e the ena ctm entof the R eal I D A ct . R eal I D A ctof 2005, Pub. L . N o. 109- 13, D iv. B , § 1 0 1 , 1 1 9 S tat . 2 3 1 (M ay1 1 , 2 0 0 5 ). 3 II. W e r evi ew t he fi nal or derof the B I A , butt o t he ext entthatthe B I A adopt s part s of th e IJ’ s o p in io n , w e re v iew th e IJ’ s o p in io n to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e B IA ’s d e c isio n to d e f e r t o th e IJ w a s a p p ro p ri a te . Z h a n g v . G o n z a le s , 4 0 5 F .3 d 1 5 0 , 1 5 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). “W e w i l l uphol d t he [a dver s e cr edi bi l i t y ] fi ndi ngs . . . t o t he ext entthattheyar e s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al and pr obat i ve evi dence on t he r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e, a n d w ill re v e rse th o se f in d in g s o n lyif

th e re is e v id e n c e so c o m p e lli n g th a t n o re a so n a b le fac t fi ndercoul d concl ude as t he [I J ] di d. ” K ay embe v. A s hcr oft , 334 F. 3d 231, 234 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). I n gener al , “mi nori ncons i s t enci es and mi noradmi s s i ons thatr evea l nothi ng abo ut an . . . app l i cant’ s fear forhis safetyare notan ad equ at e basi s for an adv ers e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng. ” G ao v. A s hcr oft , 299 F. 3d 266, 272 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . A ny di s cr epanc i es m us ti nvol ve the hea r tof the cl ai m . I d. 2 T he I J i dent i fi ed s ever al fac t or s s uppor t i ng hi s adver s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng: ( 1) i ncons i s t enci es betw een Sas ongko’ s 2003 and 2004 as y l um appl i cat i ons ; ( 2) Sas ongko w as unabl e t o pr ovi de exa ctdat es of the s exual as s aul t s ; ( 3) Sas ongko’ s cl ai m s di d not m ak e se n se b ec au se a h o m o sex u al w o u ld n o t attack an o ther h o m o sex u al; (4) S aso n g k o ’s 2004 as y l um appl i cat i on r efe r ence d onl yone vi ol enti nci denti n 2001, di d notm ent i on4

t hathe had be en s odom i zed dur i ng t hati nci dent , and di d notm ent i on tw o ear l i er i nci dent s ; ( 5) t he pol i ce r epor tr egar di ng the 2001 i nci dentdi d notm ent i on a s exual as s aul tand des cr i bed the as s aul tas occurr i ng atan i nt er s ect i on, r atherthan behi nd a ca fé as Sas ongko had t es t i fi ed; and ( 6) t he hos pi t al r epor tr egar di ng the 2001 i nci dentdi d not m e n tio n a n yse x u a l as sa u lt. T h e f i r s tt h r e e f

a c t o r s d o n o tn e c e s s a r i l ys u p p o r ta n a d v e r s e c r e d i b i l i t yf i n d i n g . As not ed above , w e w i l l as s um e fort he s ake of ar gum entthatSas ongko w as unaw ar e of the cont ent s of hi s 2003 as y l um appl i cat i on, and w e w i l l notcons i deri ncons i s t enci es betw een t hatappl i cat i on and hi s l at erappl i cat i on. A l t hough Sas ongko w as unabl e t o pr ovi de exa ct dat es of the tw o ear l i eras s aul t s , he w as abl e t o t el l appr oxi m at el yw hen theyhappene d ( J ul yorA ugus tof 1994, one dayaft erR amadan i n 1996) . W e fi nd hi s i nabi l i t yt o fur ther pi npoi ntt he dat es i s a mi norpr obl em. A s t o t he thi r d fac t or , w e not e thatSas ongko t e s t i f i e d h e wa s n o ts u r e wh e t h e rh i s a t t a c k e r s we r e h o mo s e x u a l o rn o t . I n a n ye v e n t , we do nots ee thatt he s exual i dent i t yof hi s at t acke r s i s part i cul ar l yr el evant , s o l ong as S a s o n g k o w a s p e r s e c u t e d o n a c c o u n to f h i s h o m o s e x u a l i t y. H ow ever , w e fi nd t he adve r s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng s uppor t ed bythe l as tthr ee fac t or s . Sas ongko’ s w r i t t en s t at ementi n s uppor tof hi s as y l um appl i cat i on r efe r ence s onl yt he 2001 i nci dent . A . R . 184- 85. Sas ongko t es t i fi ed thathe onl yi ncl uded one i nci denti n hi s appl i cat i on, “B eca us e the l as ti nci dentw as the i nci dentthatm ade myl i fe hi s t or ybeca m e [s i c] dark. ” A . R . 140. Sas ongko w as notr es pons i ve w hen as ked w hyheW e agree w i t h the G ov ernm ent that because S asong ko did not r ai se hi s due p rocess 3 a r g u me n ti n h i s b r i e f

t o t h e BI A, i ti s u n e x h a u s t e d a n d we ma yn o ta d d r e s s i t . 8 U. S . C. § 1252( d) ( 1) . A s t o hi s cl ai m forC A T r el i ef, w e fi nd hi s ar gum ent , thathe pr es ent ed e v id e n c e th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t o f In d o n e sia p ro p o se d in 2 0 0 3 to o u tlaw h o m o se x u a lity , to be i ns uffi ci entt o m eethi s bur den of s how i ng thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthathe w i l l be tortu red in In d o n esia. T h ere is no ev iden ce that su ch a law ev er p asse d , n o r i s the re e v i d e n c e t h a tS a s o n g k o wi l l l i k e l yb e a r r e s t e d , l e ta l o n e t o r tu r e d , u n d e rs u c h a l a w. di d noti ncl ude the fa ctt hathe w as s odom i zed i n hi s appl i cat i on, s ee A . R . 140- 41, and w e n o te th at his w ri tt en stat em en t w as o therw ise q u it e d etail ed . W e f ind that S aso n g k o ’s fai l ur e t o i ncl ude the tw o ear l i eras s aul t s , and hi s fai l ur e t o i ncl ude a maj ordet ai l of the 2001 as s aul t , s uppor t s an adve r s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng. F u rth e r, th e IJ p ro p e rlyc o n sid e re d th a t th e tw o re p o rts in th e re c o rd d o n o t en tirely corr obor at e Sas ongko’ s cl ai m s . Sas ongko cl ai m ed thathe di d notw antt o t el l the pol i ce th a t h e w a s s e x u a llya ss a u lted , b e c a u se h e w a s a f ra id . A .R . 1 2 5 . T h is m a yb e , b u t h e d id n o t exp lai n w h yh e c h an g ed o ther m ajor d etail s; e. g . , tel li n g the p o li ce that h is i tem s w ere t aken a ta tr aff

i c l i ghtr athert han i n an al l ey . A . R . 187 ( pol i ce r epor t ) . H e al s o di d not expl ai n w hyt he hos pi t al r epor tdoes notr efl ecta s exual as s aul t . A . R . 190 ( hos pi t al rep o rt ). B as ed on the for egoi ng, w e conc l ude thatthe evi dence w as not“s o compel l i ng t hat n o re a s o n a b le f

a c tf in d e r c o u ld c o n c lu d e a s th e [ IJ ] d id .” K a y e m b e , 3 3 4 F .3 d a t 2 3 4 . Be c a u s e t h e I J ’ s a d v e r s e c r e d i b i l i t yf i n d i n g wa s s u p p o r t e d b ys u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , we wi l l d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. 3