2005 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 10-26-2005 

# Jud hi a wan 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 . 04-3173

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_2005

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 2005 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 " Judhi a wan v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 345. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/345NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E 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 . 04- 3173

____________________ T AUF AN J UDHI AWAN, P eti ti o n er

v. * A L B E R T O R . G O N Z A L E S , A t t orneyG eneral of the U nit ed S t at es, R es pondent

* (S u b sti tuted p u rsua n t t o F ed . R . A p p . R u le 43 (c))

____________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B oar d N o. A 79- 318- 003)

______________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober21, 2005 B e f o re : S M IT H , B E C K E R a n d N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJudges

( Fi l ed: O ct ober26, 2005)

________________________

OP I NI ON

________________________ B E C K E R , C i r cui tJudge.2

T aufa n J udhi aw an, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of I ndones i a, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an o rde r of the B o ard o f Im m igrati o n A p p ea ls ( “B IA ”) a ff irm ing an Im m igrati o n Ju d g e’s ( “I J ”) deni al of J udhi aw an’ s appl i cat i ons foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and p ro te c tio n u n d e r t h e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rt u re (“ C A T ” ). T he fa ct s upon w hi ch the pet i t i on i s bas ed ar e t er s el ys t at ed i n J udhi aw an’ s br i ef a s foll ow s: Pet i t i onerhad bee n for ced t o endur e per s ecut i on and humi l i at i on dur i ng hi s l i fe i n I ndones i a fr om nat i ve I ndones i ans . T hi s per s ecut i on s t emm ed fr om t he fa ctt hatPet i t i onerw as ethni c C hi nes e and Chri s t i an. P e tit io n e r a n d h is f

a m ilyw e re n o t f

re e to p ra c tice th e ir re lig io n in In d o n e sia . P e tit io n e r h a s b e e n e x to rte d sin c e h e w a s a t sc h o o l. H is f a m ily bus i nes s w as l oot ed and burned dur i ng the 1998 r i ot . T hes e eve nt s had p ro g re ss e d to su c h a p o in t th a t th e P e tit io n e r n o lo n g e r f e lt sa f e in I ndones i a, as he and hi s fami l yhave ha d been r epea t edl ythr eat ened bythe N at i ve I ndones i an. J udhi aw an’ s t es t i m onyi l l um i nat es hi s cont ent i ons . A s a y oung s tudent , he w as f o rc e d to stu d yIsla m a g a in st h is w ill ( N T , page 20) , and w as s t ruck bya nat i ve I ndones i an i n t he ey e w hen he t ol d the as s ai l antthathe had no moneyt o gi ve hi m ; w hen h e re p o rt e d th e in c id e n t to a te a c h e r, t h e te a c h e r d id n o th in g . ( N T , page 21) I n 1988, he and hi s m ot herw er e r i di ng on a mot or cy cl e and pa s s ed a pol i ce of fi cer . T he pol i ce offi cers t opped J udhi aw an and a s ked forhi s l i cens e, w hi ch he di d nothave w i t h hi m , and t he pol i ce of

fi cers t ruck hi m on t he hea d. J udhi aw an and hi s m othergave the pol i ce o f f ice r m o n e y , an d th e in c id e n t ca m e to a n e n d

— b u t n o t b e f o re th e o f

f ice r to ld J udhi aw an that“thi s i s noty ourcountr y . ” ( N T , page 22- 23)3

I n 1998, J udhi aw an’ s fathercal l ed hi m t o t el l hi m thatthe fa t her ’ s bus i nes s had b e e n lo o te d d u ri n g ri o tin g . ( N T , page 24) T h e sa m e riots sp rea d to the h o tel w h ere J u d h ia w a n w o rk e d . ( N T , page 25) H e and the otherhot el empl oy ees hi d and w hen the r i ot i ng w as over , t heys aw t hatt he r i ot er s had done maj ordamage t o t he hot el and other b u s in e s s e s in th e a re a . ( N T , page 27) J udhi aw an’ s ar gum ent , s ucci nct l ys t at ed, i s thatthe I J ’ s fi ndi ng thathi s t es t i m ony i s notcr edi bl e i s nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence on t he r ecor d as a w hol e and that t he IJ erred i n n ot gr anti ng him asy l um becau se he ha s suffered pastpersecut i on and has a w el l - founded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on i f he r eturns t o I ndones i a. W e w i l l denythe p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. J udhi aw an r eci t es a numberof i nci dent s thatoccurr ed i n I ndones i a w hi ch s ugges thos t i l i t yon t he partof the maj or i t yM us l i m popul at i on agai ns tthe mi nor i t yof et hn i c C hinese C hri st i ans. O ur st and ard of revi ew i s ext rem el ydefe rent i al ; w e m ust uphol d t he I J ’ s fi ndi ngs i f theyar 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, ’ ” I N S v. E l i as - Zacar i as , 502 U . S. 478, 481 (1 9 9 2 ) (q u o tin g 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 5 a (a )(4 )), a n d m a yn o t re jec t th e m “ u n les s a n yre a so n a b le a d ju d ic a to r w o u ld b e c o m p e lle d to c o n c lu d e to th e c o n tr a ry,” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )( 4 )( B ). U ndert hi s s t andar d, i ti s cl eart hatthe I J ’ s concl us i on thatJ udhi aw an had ne i t her es t abl i s hed pas tper s ecut i on nora w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on, and s o w as not e lig ib le f o r a s y lu m , 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 .4

T hatt he i nci dent s and eve nt s r ecount ed i n t he r ecor d do notamount t o per s ecut i on i s m ade c l earbyourdi s cus s i on i n L ie v . A sh c ro ft , 3 9 6 F . 3 d 5 3 0 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) , wh e r e we r ej ect ed s i m i l arcl ai m s of per s ecut i on byan ethni c C hi nes e C hr i s t i an i n I ndones i a. C oncomi t ant l y , w e not e thatt her e i s no al l egat i on of governm ent - s pons or ed per s ecut i on, w hi ch, i f pr es ent , coul d s uppor tan as y l um cas e. A nd ther e i s no evi dence of a pa t t ern or p ra c tic e o f

p e rs e c u tio n a g a in s t in d iv id u a ls o f C h in e s e d e s c e n t in In d o n e s ia a t th is tim e . S e e id . at537- 38. J u d h i a wa n ’ s c l a i ms o f

r e l i g i o u s ( a s o p p o s e d t o e t h n i c ) p e r s e c u t i o n a l s o f a i l . He t es t i fi ed thathe w as notfr ee t o pr act i ce hi s C hr i s t i an r el i gi on i n I ndones i a, atl eas tas f re e lya s in th e U n ited S tate s. N o t o n lya re h is c laim s v a g u e a n d c o n c lu so ry , b u t th e S tate D epart m entr epor t s t hatt he I ndones i an “Const i tut i on pr ovi des forfr eedom of r el i gi on for m ember s of off

i ci al l yr ecogni zed r el i gi on [i ncl udi ng C hr i s t i ani t y ] . . . and the G overnm entgener al l yr es pect s t hi s r i ghti n pr act i ce . . . . ” U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof S ta te , In ter n a tio n a l R e lig io u s Fre e d o m R e p o rt 1 5 0 (2 0 0 1 ). S e e a lso L ie , 396 F. 3d at537- 38. T he pet i t i on forr evi ew w i l l be deni ed.