2006 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 12-18-2006 

# K urni 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 . 05-4593

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_2006

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 2006 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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 " K urni a wan v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 80. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/80T h e H o n o rab le W il li am H . Y o h n , Jr. , S en ior D istri ct Ju d g e f o r th e E astern * D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 1 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 C as e N o: 05- 4593 J OKO S . KUR NI AWAN, 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; SECRETARY OF D EPARTM ENT O F HO M ELAN D SECU RI TY

O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of Fi nal D eci s i on of the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls B I A N o. : A 79- 319- 251 I m m i gr at i on J udge: R . K . M al l oy Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber13, 2006 B e f o re : S M IT H a n d R O T H , C i r cui tJudges , a n d YOHN , D is tr i ct

Judge * ( Fi l ed: D ece m ber18, 2006)

OP I NI ONT h e IJ h a d ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 8 C .F .R . 

### § 1208. 2( b) . T he B I A exer ci s ed 1 ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .1 (b ). 2 S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge . J oko S. K urni aw an pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a f i nal or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( B I A ) , aff i r m i ng the deni al bythe i m m i gr at i on j udge ( I J ) of K urni aw an’ s appl i cat i on foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde rthe Co n v e n t i o n Ag a i n s tT o r tu r e ( CA T ) . We wi l l d e n yKu rn i a wa n ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. 1 K urni aw an i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of I ndones i a. H e al l eged i n hi s appl i cat i on for a sy lu m th a t h e h a d b e e n p e rse c u ted o n th e b a sis o f b o th h is C h in e se e th n icitya n d h is C h ristia n f

a ith . K u rn iaw a n re late d th a t h e h a d b e e n a ss a u lted b yM u slim In d o n e sia n s in 1 9 9 6 , A p ri l 19 9 7 , an d O ctob er 1 9 9 8 . D u ri n g the O ctob er 1 9 9 8 incid en t, K u rniaw an ’s g ir lf ri e n d w a s f

a ta lly w o u n d e d in h is p re s e n c e a n d h is g a rm e n t b u s in e s s w a s d e s tr o y e d . T w o m o n th s la ter , o n D e c e m b e r 1 1 , 1 9 9 8 , K u rn iaw a n e n ter e d th e U n ited S tate s. H e d id n o t, ho w e v e r, ap p lyf

o r a sy lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l, an d re lief

u n d e r th e C A T u n til m o re th a n tw o y e a rs la te r i n J u n e 2 0 0 1 . A ta heari ng befo re the IJ, K urni aw an co nced ed thathe h ad o verst ay ed h i s vi sa and w as r emovabl e. H e r eques t ed a gr antof as y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef underthe C A T . T he I J concl uded thatK urni aw an’ s as y l um cl ai m w as t i m e barr ed under 8 

### U. S. C. § 1158( a) ( 2) . B eca us e the I J found thatK urni aw an w as notcr edi bl e, he found thatK urni aw an had notpr oved pas tper s ecut i on. T he I J al s o concl uded thatK urni aw an3

had notpr oved thathe w oul d s uffe rfutur e per s ecut i on. A s s uppor t , the I J ci t ed the new o p p o rtu n it ies fo r ethn ic C h ines e In d o n esian s. A s a re su lt , the IJ d en ied K u rniaw an ’s c laim f o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l an d re lief

u n d e r th e C A T . K u rn iaw a n f iled a tim e ly a p p e a l w ith th e B IA , as se rtin g th a t th e IJ e rre d b e c a u se h e sh o u ld h a v e c o n c lu d e d th a t a “patt ern orpr act i ce of

per s ecut i on exi s t s agai ns tthe ethni c C hi nes e C hr i s t i an popul at i on. ” O n S ep tem b er 1 6 , 2 0 0 5 , the B IA af firm ed the IJ’s c o n clus ion that K u rniaw an ’s as y l um cl ai m w as unt i m el yand thathe had f ai l ed t o demonstr at e ci r cumst ance s excus i ng hi s del i nquency . T hus , the B I A cons i der ed onl ythe mer i t s of K urni aw an’ s cl ai m for w ith h o lding o f re m o v al an d reli ef u n d er the C A T . Itd eterm ined that itw as u n n ec essa ry t o addr es s the I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ngs i nas m uch as i tconcl uded that“the al l eged event s do notr i s e t o the l evel of per s ecut i on on acc ountof a pr ot ect ed gr ound” and that K u rn iaw a n f

a iled to d e m o n stra te a p a ttern o r p ra c tice o f p e rse c u tio n w h ich m e rits w i thhol di ng hi s r emoval . I n addi t i on, the B I A deni ed K urni aw an’ s C A T cl ai m , fi ndi ng thathe di d notes t abl i s h thati tw as m or e l i kel ythan notthathe w oul d be t or tur ed i f he w as r epatr i at ed t o I ndones i a. T h is t im elyp eti ti o n fo r rev iew fo ll o w ed . K u rniaw an asse rt s tha t th e B IA ’s appl i cat i on of the one y eart i m e bari n 

### § 1158( a) ( 2) vi ol at es both the tr eatyobl i gat i ons of the U n it ed S tat es a n d the D u e P roc ess C laus e o f th e U n it ed S tat es C o n sti tuti o n . In ad d it ion , h e su b m it s tha t th e re co rd c o n tai n s su b stan ti al ev iden ce that there w as a p att ernK urni aw an does notchal l enge i n hi s br i ef the B I A ’ s deni al of hi s r eques tfor 2 reli ef u n d er the C A T . N o r do es h e tak e issu e in h is r ep lyb ri ef w ith the g o v ern m en t’ s c o n te n tio n th a t h e w a iv e d th is is s u e . A c c o rd in g ly, w e d e e m th e is s u e w a iv e d . Li e v. A sh c ro ft , 3 9 6 F . 3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 2 n . 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). C ouns el poi nt ed outthata pet i t i on forr ehea r i ng w as pendi ng i n Su kw a n p u tr a . 3 W e not e thatthe pet i t i on forr ehea r i ng has been de ni ed. 4 orpr act i ce of

per s ecut i on agai ns tethni c C hi nes e i ndi vi dual s l i vi ng i n I ndones i a. 2 W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe pr opr i etyof the B I A ’ s appl i cat i on of the one y eart i m e bari n 

### § 1 1 5 8 (a )( 2 ). Sukw anputr a v. G onz al es , 4 3 4 F . 3 d 6 2 7 , 6 3 1 (3d C ir . 2006) . B eca us e the B I A di d notadoptthe I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on, our r evi ew i s l i m i t ed t o the fi nal or deri s s ued bythe B I A and w hetheri ti s s uppor t ed by s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . A b d u la i v. A sh c ro ft , 239 F. 3d 542, 549 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . Subst ant i al e v id e n c e is “ su c h re lev a n t ev id e n c e a s a re a so n a b le m in d m ig h t ac c e p t as a d e q u a te to s uppor ta conc l us i on . . . . ” D ia v . A sh c ro ft , 353 F. 3d 228, 248 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( en banc ) ( quot i ng N

. L. R . B . v. C ol um bi an E nam el i ng & Stam pi ng C o. , 3 0 6 U . S . 2 9 2 , 3 0 0 (19 3 9 )) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). K u rniaw an ap p rop ri atelyac k n o w ledg es in h is brief tha t his argu m en ts w ith reg ard to § 1 1 5 8 (a )(2 )’s tim e b a r a re “ a lm o st id e n tica l” to th o se w h ich w e re re jec ted in Sukw anputr a v. G onz al es , 434 F. 3d at634. W e agr ee. A ccor di ngl y , w e ar e bound by 3 the hol di ng i n Su kw an

pu tra thatthe one y ears t atut oryper i od nei thervi ol at es the S u p re m a c yC la u s e n o r t h e ri g h t to d u e p ro c e s s . I d. at632; 3d C i r . I O P 9. 1. B eca us e the tim e b a r i s n o t c o n s titu tio n a lly in f ir m , w e la c k ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 8 U .S .C . 

### § 1158( a) ( 3)5

t o revi ew no ton l ythe ap pli cat i on of the t i m e bar t o K urni aw an’s as y l um cl ai m , bu tal so th e d e ter m in a tio n th a t K u rn iaw a n f a iled to d e m o n stra te c irc u m sta n c e s e x c u sin g h is u n tim e ly ap p lic a tio n . Su kw an pu tra , 4 3 4 F .3 d a t 6 3 2 ; T a rr a w a lly v . A sh c ro

ft , 338 F. 3d 1 8 0 , 1 8 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). W e do have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew K urni aw an’ s cl ai m forw i thhol di ng of r emoval u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 (b )( 3 )( A ). See 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) . K urni aw an cont ends thatthe B I A err ed i n i t s det erm i nat i on thathe fa i l ed t o m eethi s bur den of pr oof forw i thhol di ng of r emoval . K urni aw an as s ert s thatther e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the r ecor d dem on strat i ng that there w as a pat t ern or pract i ce of persecut i on of ethnical l yC hinese C h ri sti an Ind o n esian s. T h e issu e is n o t w h ethe r th is r ec o rd su p p o rt s K u rniaw an ’s c o n te n tio n th a t th e re is a p a tte rn o r p ra c tic e o f p e rs e c u tio n a g a in s t th is g ro u p o f p e rs o n s . I ns t ead, as the Supr eme C our tpoi nt ed outi n I N S v. E l i as - Zacar i as , 5 0 2 U . S . 4 7 8 (19 9 2 ), the i s s ue i s w hetherthe evi dence of r ecor d “notonl ys uppor t s thatconcl us i on, but compel s i t. . . . ” I

d. at481 n. 1. I n L ie v . A sh c ro

ft , 396 F. 3d 530 ( 3d C i r . 2005) , “w e agr ee[ d] w i th othercourt s t hat have he l d t hat , t o cons t i tut e a ‘ patt ern orpr act i ce, ’ the per s ecut i on of the gr oup m us tbe

‘ s y s t emi c, pervas i ve, oror gani zed. ’ ” I d. at537 ( quot i ng N

g u re v . A sh c ro

ft , 367 F. 3d 975, 9 9 1 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 )). In a d d iti o n , w e re itera ted th a t co n d u c t “d o e s n o t co n stitu te per s ecut i on unl es s s uch ac t s ar e ‘ comm i t t ed bythe governm entorfor ces the governm ent i s ei ther‘ unabl e orunw i l l i ng’ t o contr ol . ’ ” I d. at537 ( quot i ng A b d u lra h m a n v . A sh c ro ft ,3 3 0 F .3 d 5 8 7 , 5 9 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 )) .

W e ar e mi ndful of the ci t at i ons bythe I J t o the evi dence of i m pr oved condi t i ons forC hi nes e I ndones i ans and t o K urni aw an’ s t es t i m onythatthe governm entdi d not p re v e n t h im f

ro m p ra c ticin g h is f

a ith . T h e 2 0 0 3 U n ited S tate s D e p a rtm e n t o f S tate C ountryR eportforI ndones i a s uppor t s the I J ’ s fi ndi ng i n thi s r egar d. M or eover , the C o u n tryR e p o rt c o n f

irm s th a t C h ristia n ityis re c o g n ize d b yth e g o v e rn m e n t o f In d o n e sia a n d th a tt o l e r a n c e f

o rn o n - M u s l i m r e l i g i o n s h a s i mp r o v e d . Al th o u g h th e r e i s s o me evi dence , as K urni aw an poi nt s outi n hi s br i ef, of s om e i nt err el i gi ous vi ol ence , w e ar e not c o m p e lled b yth is re c o rd to f in d a p a ttern o r p ra c tice o f p e rse c u tio n a g a in st th e e th n ic C hi nes e C hr i s t i an popul at i on of I ndones i a. We wi l l d e n yKu r n i a wa n ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.

6