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 

### M ay24,2007 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 ES THE R M ARTHA RUM AJ AR,

P eti ti o n er, v. A L B E R T O R . G O N Z A L E S, U ni t ed 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- 9561 ( N o. A 79- 286- 688) ( P e t i t i o n fo rRe v i e w)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e M c CO NNELL , P O R F IL IO , and BA LD OCK , C i rcui tJudg es.

Pet i t i onerE s therM artha R um aj ari s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of I ndones i a. She c h a llen g e s a n o rd e r o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (B IA ) su m m a rily aff i r m i ng the dec i s i on of an I m m i gr at i on J udge ( I J ) deny i ng herappl i cat i on for as y l um . She chal l enges the I J ’ s fi ndi ngs t hats he di d nots uffe rpas tper s ecut i on in In d o n e sia ; th a t sh e d o e s n o t h a v e a w e ll-fo u n d e d fe a r o f f u tu re p e rse c u tio n ifH erhus band i s noti ncl uded i n herappl i cat i on and i tappea r s t hathe has 1 fi l e d a s e p a r a t e a p p l i c a t i o n fo ra s y l u m.

- 2- re tu rn e d to In d o n e sia ; an d th a t sh e c o u ld e sc a p e p e rse c u tio n if re tu rn e d to I ndones i a bys afe l yr el ocat i ng t o t he ci tyof M anado, w her e s he gr ew up and w h e re h e r p a re n ts s til l li v e . S h e f u rth e r a rg u e s th a t th e IJ e rre d in fa ili n g to con si der w hethert he g ov ernm ent, w hil e “w i l l i ng ” t o co ntr ol vi olence against C hi nes e C hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a, i s “unabl e” t o do s o. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) , a n d we d e n yth e p e t i t i o n fo rr e v i e w. I . Backg r ound M s . R um aj arw as admi t t ed t o the U ni t ed St at es on J anuary29, 2001, on a noni m m i gr antvi s a, w i th author i zat i on t o r emai n fors i x m onths . She over s t ay ed h e r v isa , m a rrie d a n In d o n e sia n a lso p re se n t in th e U n ited S tate s a n d h a d a c h ild b yh i m. 1 O n M ay4, 2001, s he s ubm i t t ed an appl i cat i on foras y l um , r es tr i ct i on on r emoval , and C A T r el i ef. I n t he appl i cat i on, s he i dent i fi ed her s el f as a C hr i s t i an of C hi nes e des cent . A ccor di ng t o M s . R um aj ar , t hes e tw o char act er i s t i cs pl ace heratthe r i s k of s ever e per s ecut i on att he hands of M us l i m I ndones i ans . She r el at ed a numberof i nci dent s i n w hi ch s he, m ember s of herfami l y , and other C h i n e s e C h r i s t i a n s i n I n d o n e s i a e x p e r i e n c e d r e l i g i o u s a n d e th n i c a n i m o s i ty, i ncludi ng assaul t s, robberi es, rapes, m urders , and chu rch- bu rni ng s.- 3-

O n D ec em b er 1 9 , 2 0 0 3 , M s. R u m ajar w as issu ed a n o ti ce to ap p ea r be fo re an I J t o s how caus e w hys he s houl d notbe r emoved fr om the U ni t ed St at es for over s t ay i ng hervi s a. She conce ded the cha r ge, and a he ar i ng w as s chedul ed on heras y l um appl i cat i on. A tt he hea r i ng, hel d M ar ch 14, 2005, s he pr es ent ed t es t i m onyconce r ni ng i nci dent s of r el i gi ous and ethni c vi ol ence s he and other C hi nes e C hr i s t i ans had s uffe r ed i n r ece nty ear s i n I ndones i a, al ong w i th num er ous n e w s re p o rts a n d g o v e rn m e n t d o c u m e n ts c o n c e rn in g e th n ic a n d re lig io u s tu rm o il i n thatcountr y . T he I J obt ai ned and r evi ew ed the mostr ece ntSt at e D epart m ent r eporton hum an r i ght s pr act i ces i n I ndones i a. I n hi s or al deci s i on, the I J deni ed M s . R um aj ar ’ s appl i cat i on and or der ed herr emoved t o I ndones i a. A l though he found he rt es t i m onycr edi bl e, he not ed thatthe “outbr eak of

ethni c and r el i gi ous vi ol ence i n the l at e 1990s . . . has cal m ed dow n cons i der abl y ” and that“i ns t ance s of di s cr i m i nat i on and har as s m ent of ethni c C hi nes e I ndones i ans [has ] decl i ned compar ed w i th pr evi ous y ear s . ” A dm i n. R . at72 ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . T he I J s t at ed thatal though the I ndones i an governm entdoes notper s ecut e C hi nes e C hr i s t i ans , the bac kgr ound m at er i al M s . R um aj ars ubm i t t ed s uppor t ed hercont ent i on that“the pol i ce ha ve bee n m os t l yi neffect i ve i n tr y i ng t o pr ot ectthe C hi nes e popul at i on i n I ndones i a” f r om th e irM u s lim p e rs e c u to rs . Id. H e di d not , how ever , fi nd thats he had a l l eged fac t s w hi ch amount ed t o pas tper s ecut i on. E ven i f s he had, the I J fur ther- 4-

det erm i ned thats he coul d r el ocat e i nt ernal l yi n I ndones i a t o the ci tyof M anado a n d th e re b ya v o id p e rs e c u tio n , a n d th a t it w a s re a s o n a b le fo r h e r t o d o s o . M s . R um aj arappea l ed t o the B I A , w hi ch affi rm ed w i thoutopi ni on. She then p eti ti o n ed this co u rtfo r rev iew . S h e se ek s rev iew o n lyo f th e a g en cy ’s det erm i nat i on on as y l um and does notchal l enge i t s deni al of herappl i cat i ons for re s tr ic tio n o n re m o v a l, C A T p ro te c tio n , a n d v o lu n ta ry d e p a rt u re . See A pl t . B r . at 1 2 . I I . D i s c us s i on T he B I A ’ s s um m aryaff i r m ance of the I J ’ s deci s i on m akes t he I J ’ s deci s i on th e fin a l a g e n c yd e te rm in a tio n fo r p u rp o s e s o f o u r r e v ie w . Tul engkey v. G onz al es , 425 F. 3d 1277, 1279 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . W e r evi ew t he I J ’ s fac tual fin d in g s fo r s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . Estr a da -Esc o b a r v . A sh c ro ft , 376 F. 3d 1042, 1 0 4 6 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). H is fa c tu a l fin d in g s “ a re c o n c lu siv e u n les s a n yre a so n a b le a dj u d i c a t o rwo u l d b e c o mp e l l e d t o c o n c l u d e t o t h e c o n tr a ry . ” 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 2 (b )( 4 )( B ). W e re v ie w th e IJ ’s le g a l c o n c lu s io n s d e n o v o . Ha d jim e h d ig h o li v . I NS , 4 9 F .3 d 6 4 2 , 6 4 7 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). “T o b e el i gibl e for asy l um , an ali en m ustshow t hat s he h as suffered past per s ecut i on orhas ‘ a w el l - founded fearof [f utur e] per s ecut i on on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on. ’ 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) . ” Tul engkey , 425 F. 3d at1280. T he s how i ng of pas tper s ecut i on “es t abl i s hes a pr es um pt i on of w el l - founded fearofS pecifi cal l y , the ap pli cable r egu l at i on provides that an I J 2 i n the exe r ci s e of hi s orherdi s cr et i on, s hal l denyt he as y l um app l i cat i on of an al i en fo un d to be a refug ee on t he b asi s of pa st p erse cu ti o n if [h e find s] bya p rep o n d era n ce o f th e e v iden ce [th at]: [ . . .] ( B ) T he appl i cantcoul d avoi d fur therper s ecut i on byr el ocat i ng t o anotherpartof the appl i cant ’ s countryof nat i onal i ty. . . and under al l t he ci r cumst ance s , i tw oul d be r eas onabl e t o expec tt he appl i cant t o do s o. 8 C . F . R . § 1 2 0 8 . 1 3 (b)(i) (B ).

- 5- futur e per s ecut i on on t he s ame bas i s as es t abl i s hed forthe or i gi nal per s ecut i on. ” Ni ang v. G onz al es , 4 2 2 F .3 d 1 1 8 7 , 1 1 9 5 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). E ven i f w e as s um e thatthe i nci dent s r el at ed byM s . R um aj arcons t i tut ed pas tper s ecut i on, a fi ndi ng of pas tper s ecut i on onl ycr eat es a pr es um pt i on thatt he al i en w oul d be s ubj ectt o fur therper s ecut i on i f r eturned t o hercountryof n a tio n a lity. See i d. at1194. T he age ncym ayr ebutthi s pr es um pt i on bypr ovi ng thatthe al i en coul d avoi d futur e per s ecut i on byr el ocat i ng t o anotherpartof her c o u n tr yo f

n a tio n a lity, a n d th a t it w o u ld b e re a s o n a b le fo r h e r t o d o s o . Id . at 1195. A l s o, r egar dl es s of pas tper s ecut i on, “an a l i en does nothave a

2 w el l - founded fearof [f utur e] per s ecut i on i f the appl i cantcoul d avoi d per s ecut i on b yre lo c a tin g to a n o th e r p a rtyo f th e a p p lica n t’s c o u n tryo f n a tio n a lity. . . [a n d ] if underal l the ci r cumst ance s i tw oul d be r eas onabl e t o expec tt he appl i cantt o do s o .” 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 3 (b )( 2 )( ii) .- 6-

I n herappel l at e br i ef i n thi s cour t , M s . R um aj aratt acks the I J ’ s fi ndi ngs th a t sh e c o u ld sa fe lyre lo c a te to M a n a d o a n d th a t itw o u ld b e re a so n a b le fo r h e r to do so. A plt . B r. at17 -22. B ut s he d i d n ot chal l eng e t he IJ’ s fi nd i ng s on these is s u e s b e fo re th e B IA . See A dm i n. R . at13- 27. W e ther efor e ca nnotcons i derher c h a lle n g e h e re . S e e Ri v e r a - Zu r i ta v . I NS , 946 F. 2d 118, 120 n. 2 ( 10th C i r . 1991) ( “J udi ci al r evi ew does notext end t o poi nt s the al i en coul d have made befor e the B oar d butdi d not . ”) . Fai l ur e t o m ountan effec t i ve cha l l enge t o an I J ’ s r el ocat i on fin d in g fo rs ta lls a n a s y lu m c la im b a s e d e ith e r o n p a s t p e rs e c u tio n , s ee Ni ang , 4 2 2 F .3 d a t 1 1 9 5 , o r o n 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 , s ee Tul engkey , 4 2 5 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 2 . W e m u s t th e re fo re a ffir m th e IJ ’s d e n ia l o f a s y lu m . T h e p e t i t i o n fo rr e v i e w i s DE NI E D. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

M ich a e l W . M c C o n n e ll C i r cui tJ udge