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. 09- 1573

___________ N O V IE IR E N E T A M B A A N I; S E N D R A H E L S A V E R O N IC A , P eti ti o n ers

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 os . 098- 493- 995 and 098- 439- 999 I m m i gr at i on J udge: Fr eder i c G . L eeds

____________________________________ 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 1, 2010 B efor e: M cK E E , C hi ef Judge, H A R D I M A N and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y28, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM N ovi e I r ene Tam baani and herdaught erSendr a H el s a V er oni ca pe t i t i on 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 thei rappea l f r o m a n I mm i g r a t i o n J u d g e ’ s ( “ I J ” ) r e mo v a l o r d e r . 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.2

T ambaani and V er oni ca a r e nat i ves and ci t i zens of I ndones i a. B oth conce ded that th e ywe r e r e mo v a b l e b e c a u s e th e yh a d r e ma i n e d i n th e Un i t e d S t a t e s b e y o n d th e t i me a u th o r i z e d . Ta mb a a n i ap p l i e d f o rc a n c e l l a t i o n o f

r e mo v a l p u r s u a n tt o 8 U. S . C. § 1 22 9b ( b) [IN A § 2 40 A ( b) ] , ba s e d o n h e ra l l e ga t i on tha the rothe rdaug ht e r , a U . S. ci t i zen, w oul d s uffe rexce pt i onal and extr emel yunus ual har ds hi p i f Tam baani w er e t o be r emoved t o I ndones i a. V er oni ca appl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT ortur e ( “C A T ”) , bas ed on heral l egat i on that s he had be en, and w oul d be, per s ecut ed and/ ort ortur ed bec aus e s he i s a pr act i ci ng C hr i s t i an. T he I J found thatV er oni ca’ s as y l um cl ai m w as t i m e- barr ed, and thatno excep t i on app l i ed. T he IJ denied Peti t i on ers rel i ef on the m eri t s of theirothercl ai m s, ex ce p t fo r gra n ti n g them b o th the p ri v il eg e o f v o lun taryd ep arture. T h e p eti ti o n ers ap p e a led , an d th e B IA d ism iss e d th e ir ap p e a ls, b u t als o p e rm itt e d th e m to v o lu n tar ily d e p a rt. P e tit io n e rs f

iled a tim e lyp e tit io n f

o r re v iew in th is C o u rt. W e m u st fir st co n side r w h ich o f P eti ti o n ers’ claim s are p rop erlyb ef o re this C o u rt forr evi ew . W e gene r al l yhave j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew a fi nal r emoval or derpur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252, buts ect i on 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) r emoves j ur i s di ct i on fordeni al s of di s cr et i onaryr el i ef unde r8 U . S. C . § 1229b. M endez - M or anche l v. A s hcr oft , 338 F. 3d 176, 178 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . T he B I A deni ed Tam baani ’ s appl i cat i on forcanc el l at i on of r emoval becaus e s he di d nots how thatherU . S. ci t i zen daught erw oul d s uffe rexce pt i onal and extr emel yunus ual har ds hi p. T he det erm i nat i on w hetherthe al i en has es t abl i s hed the3

requi si t e hardship i s a “quint essent i al dis cret i on aryj ud gm ent. ” Id. at17 9. N evertheles s, the R E A L I D A ctamended the I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ctt o al l ow cons t i tut i onal claim s o r qu esti o n s o f law to su rviv e it s jurisdicti o n -stri p p ing p rov isi o n s, see R E A L ID A ct106( a) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i i ) , 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) . T ambaani att empt s t o fr ame heri s s ue as a l egalques t i on, bys t at i ng thatthe B I A i m pos ed a he i ght ened l egal s t andar d and r equi r ed h e r to sh o w th a t h e r d a u g h ter ’s h a rd sh ip w o u ldb e “ u n c o n sc io n a b le.” B u t th e B IA c lea rly art i culat ed the corr ectl egal s t and ard i n it s deci si on . S ee A . R . 2 (“a r espon den tm ust d e m o n stra te th a t h e r U n ited S tate s c iti z e n c h ild re n w o u ldsu f f e r h a rd sh ip th a t is su b stan ti all yb ey o n d that w h ich w o u ld o rdin aril yb e e x p ec ted to resu ltfro m an ali en ’s deport at i on, butneed nots how thats uch har ds hi p w oul d be ‘ uncons ci onabl e’ ”) . W e l ack ju risd ictio n to re -w e ig h th e f a c to rs T a m b a a n i p re se n ted in su p p o rt o f h e r c laim , w h ich is es s ent i al l yw hats he i s as ki ng us t o do. W e thus w i l l di s m i s s the pet i t i on forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on t o the ext enti ts eeks r evi ew of the deni al of Tam baani ’ s appl i cat i on for c a n c e llatio n o f

re m o v a l. W e nextcons i derV er oni ca’ s cl ai m s . I n m os tcas es , w e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew a f inal o rde r of

rem o v al i n v o lving the d en ial o f a sy lum . 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a)(1). H o w ev er, 8 U . S. C . § 1158( a) ( 3) pr ovi des thatno courts hal l have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew any det erm i nat i on r egar di ng the t i m el i nes s of an a s y l um appl i cat i on and the appl i cabi l i tyofA n as y l um cl ai m m us tgener al l ybe fi l ed w i thi n one y earof an a l i en’ s arr i val i n the 1 U n it ed S tat es. 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 5 8 (a)(2)(D ). W hi l e the B I A ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs ar e r evi ew ed fors ubs t ant i al evi dence , w e r evi ew 2 th e leg a l co n c lu sio n s d e n o v o , su b jec t to th e p rin c ip les o f d e f e re n c e a rticu late d in C hevr on U . S. A . , I nc. v. N atur al R es our ces D efe ns e C ounci l , I nc. , 467 U . S. 837, 844 (19 8 4 ). B ri sen o -F lores v . A tt ’yG en . , 4 9 2 F . 3 d 2 2 6 , 2 2 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). 4 the exc ept i ons . See Tarr aw al l yv. A s hcr oft , 338 F. 3d 180, 185 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . T he 1 C o u rt n e v e rth e les s re tain s ju risd ictio n o v e r a n yleg a l o r c o n stitu tio n a l cla im s ra ise d in conj unct i on w i th thi s i s s ue. See 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) . V er oni ca a r gues thatthe oney e a rd e a d l i n e s h o u l d n o tap p l yt o h e r , b e c a u s e s h e wa s ( u n d i s p u t e d l y ) a mi n o ra tth e t i me of herappl i cat i on. T hi s i s a l egal ques t i on overw hi ch w e have j ur i s di ct i on. 2 T he B I A , ci t i ng 8 C . F. R . § 1208. 4( a) ( 5) ( i i ) , agr eed w i th the I J thatV er oni ca ha d “f ail ed to es tablish tha t her status a s an u n ac co m p an ied m ino r w as a n ex tr ao rdin ary ci r cumst ance s o as t o excus e herfai l ur e t o fi l e an a s y l um appl i cat i on w i thi n one y earof herarr i val i n the U ni t ed St at es . ” A . R . 3. T he r egul at i on i n ques t i on pr ovi des thatan “extr aor di naryci r cumst ance ” mayi ncl ude a “ [l ] egal di s abi l i ty( e. g. , the appl i cantw as an unacc om pani ed mi norors uffe r ed fr om a ment al i m pai rm ent ) dur i ng the 1- y earper i od aft erarr i val . ” 8 C . F. R . § 1208. 4( a) ( 5) ( i i ) . T he I J not ed thatV er oni ca mayhave c om e on th e a irp la n e f

ro m In d o n e s ia a lo n e , b u t th a t s h e c a m e to liv e w ith h e r m o th e r a n d f a th e r. T h e IJ f o u n d th a t s h e w a s th u s n o t “ u n a c c o m p a n ie d ” a n d d id n o t m e e t th e e x c e p tio n . V er oni ca c i t es one ca s e i n w hi ch the C ourts t at ed thata pet i t i oner , a mi norw ho w as app arent l yl i ving w i th h i s parent s, w as not s ubj ectt o the t i m e-barbecau se he w as aB ecaus e the B I A cons i der ed s ua s pont e w hetherthe t i m e- barappl i ed, w e have 3 j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derthe i s s ue, i n gener al , des pi t e V er oni ca’ s fai l ur e t o r ai s e i ti n her b ri ef to the B IA . L in v . A tt ’yG en . , 5 4 3 F . 3 d 1 1 4 , 1 2 3 -24 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). W e a ss u m e th a t th e B IA a n d IJ in terp re ted th e re g u latio n to p ro v id e a n e x c e p tio n to 4 t i m el i nes s pr ovi s i ons w her e the mi norchi l d w as “unac compani ed” dur i ng the y ear fol l ow i ng hi s orherentry , and notj us t“unac compani ed” a tthe t i m e of e ntryi t s el f. 5 m i nor . E l H i m r i v. A s hcr oft , 378 F. 3d 932, 936 ( 9 C i r . 2004) . I n thatcas e, the I J had th cons i der ed the mer i t s of the mi norchi l d’ s as y l um pet i t i on, and ther e i s no i ndi cat i on that the p arti es d ispu ted th e p rop ri etyo f th at ac ti o n . H ere , in co n tr ast, the IJ a n d B IA c o n c lu d e d th a t V e ro n ica d idn o t m e e t th e e x c e p tio n u n d e r th e re g u latio n . V e ro n ica d id notar gue bef

or e the B I A ( nordoes s he her e) thatthe r egul at i on w as uncons t i tut i onal or otherw i s e i m pr oper , and w e conc l ude thatthe B I A ’ s appl i cat i on and i m pl i ed 3 interpre tat ion w as p rop er. 4 A lth o u g h w e c a n n o t re v iew th e m e rits o f V e ro n ica ’s a sy lu m c laim , w e re tain j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derthe deni al of herappl i cat i ons forw i thhol di ng of r emoval and p r o t e c t i o n u n d e rth e CA T. T arr aw al l y , 338 F. 3d at185- 86. T o qual i fyforw i thhol di ng of r emoval , an al i en m us tes t abl i s h thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthather“l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened in th [ e ] c o u n try[ o f

re m o v a l] b e c a u se o f

th e a lien ’s r a c e , relig io n , n a tio n a lity , m e m b e rsh ip in a p arti cu lar soc ial g rou p , o r po li ti ca l op inion . ” S ee 8 U . S . C . 1 2 3 1 (b)(3 )(A ); T arr aw al l y , 33 8 F . 3d at18 6. T o m eetthis st and ard, the ali en m ustshow ei ther ( 1) past p e rse c u tio n , w h ich c re a tes a re b u ttab le p re su m p tio n o f f u tu re p e rse c u tio n ; o r (2 ) th a t itis6

mo r e l i k e l yth a n n o tth a ts h e wi l l s u f f e rf u tu r e p e r s e c u t i o n i f

r e mo v e d . S e e 8 C. F . R. § 1 2 0 8 .1 6 (b ). P e rse c u tio n c o n sis ts o f “ th re a ts to life , co n f

in e m e n t, t o rtu re , an d e c o n o m ic 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, ” but“does not encompas s al l tr eatm entthatours oci etyr egar ds as unfai r , unj us t , oreven unl aw ful or uncons t i tut i onal . ” Fat i n v. I . N . S. , 12 F. 3d 1233, 1240 ( 3d C i r . 1993) . T o be el i gi bl e for C A T re lief

, an a lien m u st s h o w th a t itis m o re lik e lyth a n n o t th a t sh e w ill b e to rtu re d if r emoved t o the countryi n ques t i on. 8 C . F. R . § 1208. 16( c) ( 2) . “Tortur e” c ons i s t s of the i nt ent i onal i nfl i ct i on of “s ever e pai n ors uffe r i ng . . . byoratthe i ns t i gat i on of orw i th the c o n s e n t o r a c q u ie s c e n c e o f a p u b lic o f

f ic ia l o r o th e r p e rs o n a c tin g in a n o f f ic ia l c a p a c ity.” 8 C . F . R . § 1 2 0 8 . 1 8 (a)(1). V er oni ca t es t i fi ed thats he w as tr eat ed “ba d” byM us l i m s tudent s , and thats he r emem ber s a dayw hen herchur ch w as burned dow n. A . R . 188- 90. T hes e i s ol at ed i nci dent s do notr i s e t o the l evelof “pa s tper s ecut i on. ” K ho v. K ei s l er , 505 F. 3d 50, 57- 58 ( 1s tC i r . 2007) ( w her e tw o chur ches thatpet i t i oneratt ended i n I ndones i a w er e burned d o w n a n d h e e x p e rie n c e d a n o n -v io len t m u g g in g , d isc rim in a tio n , an d a v e rb a l in su lt, p e tit io n e r h a d n o t es tab lish e d p a st p e rse c u tio n ). A lth o u g h V e ro n ica p o in ts o u t in c id e n ts of per s ecut i on of C hr i s t i ans i n m at er i al s i n the r ecor d, V er oni ca di d notpr es entany evi dence thats he w oul d be s i ngl ed outforper s ecut i on i n the futur e, and s he di d notar gue b e f o re th e B IA th a t th e re w a s a p a ttern o r p ra c tice o f p e rse c u tio n o f

C h ristia n s in Ind o n esia. S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (d)(1 ); S an d ie v. A tt ’yG en . , 5 6 2 F . 3 d 2 4 6 , 2 5 0 n . 1 (co u rtA l though V er oni ca s t at es thatthe B I A err ed i n deny i ng herC A T cl ai m , s he does not 5 p o in t to a n ye v id e n c e in th e re c o rd in d ica tin g th a t itis m o re lik e lyth a n n o t th a t sh e w o u ld be t ortur ed i f s he w er e t o r eturn t o I ndones i a. W e thus w i l l denythe pet i t i on forr evi ew o f th e d e n i a l o f

h e rc l a i m f

o rp r o t e c t i o n u n d e rth e CA T.

7 is w ith o u t ju risd ictio n to c o n sid e r iss u e s w h e re a lien h a s f a iled to e x h a u st a ll av a ilab le ad m inistrati v e re m ed ies). W e thu s fin d that su b stan ti al ev iden ce su p p o rt s the B IA ’s fi ndi ng thatV er oni ca di d notm eetherbur den of e s t abl i s hi ng el i gi bi l i tyforw i thhol di ng o f re m o v a l. 5 F o rth e r e a s o n s s t a t e d a b o v e , 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.