I M G- 2 3 4 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- 3519

___________ Y O O N PI N Y A P,

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 088 425 888 I m m i gr at i on J udge: D or othyH arbeck

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

J une 9, 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S, V A N A SK I E and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 15, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Y oon Pi n Y ap has fi l ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of Im m igrati o n A p p ea ls ( “B IA ”), w h ich d ism issed h is ap p ea l from an Im m igrati o n Ju d g e’s ( “ I J ” ) f i n a l 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.O n a p p e a l , th e B I A a g r e e d w i th th e I J th a tY a p ’ s a s yl u m a p p l i c a t i o n w a s u n t i m e l y, 1 an d Y ap co n ce d es in h is brief h ere that w e lac k juri sd ict ion to co n side r th e issu e f u rth er. 2 Y ap i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of M al ay s i a. H e i s of C hi nes e ethni ci tyand pr act i ces the B uddhi s tr el i gi on. H e ca m e t o the U ni t ed St at es on a vi s i t or ’ s vi s a buts t ay ed l onger than perm i t t ed. H e appl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval and pr ot ect i on undert he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . T he I J found thathi s as y l um appl i cat i on w as unt i m el y , butcons i der ed hi s el i gi bi l i tyforotherr el i ef. T he I J found thatY ap w as not

1 cr edi bl e, thathe fa i l ed t o pr ovi de ade quat e corr obor at i on of hi s cl ai m s , and thathe fa i l ed t o m eethi s bur den of s how i ng el i gi bi l i tyforw i thhol di ng of r emoval and pr ot ect i on under th e CA T. T he B I A agr eed w i th t he I J ’ s “ul t i m at e conc l us i on that , even i f cr edi bl e, [Y ap] fai l ed t o m eethi s bur den of pr oof foras y l um and w i thhol di ng of r emoval . ” A . R . 3. T he B IA fo u n d that Y ap ’s t esti m o n ythat h e w as d iscri m inated ag ains t atsch o o l byteac h ers and s tudent s , and thathe w as s t opped bypol i ce a nd for ced t o paybr i bes fors uppos ed tr aff i c vi ol at i ons , di d notr i s e t o t he l evel of pas tper s ecut i on. T he B I A al s o found that asy lum eli g ibil ityw as n o t est ab li sh ed b ythe e v iden ce Y ap su b m itted o f c o u n try c o n d iti o n s. T h e B IA a g re e d th a t Y a p h a d f a iled to p ro v id e re a so n a b lya v a ilab le co rrob o rati o n o f h is cl aim s, su ch as w ri tt en stat em en ts from fa m il ym em b ers. T h e B IA a lso n o ted th a t th e re c o rd d id “ n o t in d ica te th a t itis m o re lik e lyth a n n o t th a t [ Y a p ] w ill fac e t or tur e byorw i th t he ac qui es cenc e ( t o i ncl ude the conc eptof w i l l ful bl i ndnes s ) of a3

m emberof the governm entof M al ay s i a upon r eturn t o M al ay s i a. ” A . R . 4. Y ap fi l ed a t i m el ypet i t i on forr evi ew of the B I A ’ s deci s i on. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overthi s pet i t i on forr evi ew under8 U . S. C . § 1252. W her e, a s h e r e , th e BI A a d o p t e d s o me o f th e f i n d i n g s o f

th e I J a n d ma d e a d d i t i o n a l f i n d i n g s , we r evi ew the dec i s i ons of both the B I A and the I J . G om ez- Z ul uaga v. A t t ’ yG en. , 527 F. 3d 33 0, 33 9 (3d C i r. 20 08 ). T o b e el i gibl e for w i thh oldi ng of rem ov al , Y ap m ust demonstr at e thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthathi s l i fe w oul d be thr eat ened i n M al ay s i a 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 o p i n i o n . T a r r a w a l l y , 3 3 8 F . 3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 6 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) ; 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 3 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( A ) . We m a yre v e rse th e B IA ’s d e c isio n o n lyif th e re c o rd w o u ld c o m p e l a r e a so n a b le f a c tf in d e r to concl ude thatthe r equi s i t e fe arexi s t ed. I . N . S. v. E l i as - Z aca r i as , 502 U . S. 478, 481 (19 9 2 ). T he r ecor d does notcompel the conc l us i on thatthe i nci dent s Y ap r ecount ed ( bei ng punched onc e, havi ng t o paybr i bes fortr aff i c i nci dent s ) r i s e t o the l evel of “pe r s ecut i on. ” S e e F a tin v . IN S , 1 2 F .3 d 1 2 3 3 , 1 2 4 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 3 ) (d e f in in g p e rse c u tio n a s “ th re a ts to l i fe, confi nement , t or tur e, and ec onom i c r es tr i ct i ons s o s ever e thattheycons t i tut e a thr eat t o l i fe orfr eedom, ” and e xpl ai ni ng thatper s ecut i on “does notencompas s al l tr eatm ent thatours oci etyr egar ds as unfai r , unj us toreven unl aw ful oruncons t i tut i onal ”) ; W ong v. A t t ’ yG en. , 539 F. 3d 225, 236 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( obs ervi ng that“har as s m entand d iscri m ination d o n o t con sti tute p erse cu ti o n ”); L ie v. A sh cro ft, 3 9 6 F . 3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 6 (3d C ir .B o th th e IJ a n d B IA d e n ie d Y a p ' s c la im s in p a rt b e c a u s e o f la c k o f c o rr o b o ra tio n . 2 H ow ever , even i f the i nci dent s Y ap r ecount ed had be en corr obor at ed, theyw oul d not s uppor ta fi ndi ng of pas tper s ecut i on. A l though Y ap s t at es thatthe B I A err ed i n deny i ng hi s C A T cl ai m , he does notpoi nt 3 t o anyevi dence i n t he r ecor d i ndi cat i ng thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthathe w oul d be t or tur ed i f he w er e t o r eturn t o M al ay s i a. W e thus w i l l denythe pet i t i on forr evi ew of the d e n i a l o f h i s c l a i m f

o rp r o t e c t i o n u n d e rth e CA T. 4 2 0 0 5 ) ( h o ld in g th a t “ tw o is o la te d c ri m in a l a c ts , p e rp e tr a te d b yu n k n o w n a s s a ila n ts , . . . [ar e] nots uffi ci ent l ys ever e t o be cons i der ed per s ecut i on”) . W e furtheragr ee w i th the 2 B IA th a t th e re c o rd d o e s n o t re f lec t th a t co u n tryc o n d iti o n s a re su c h th a t itis m o re lik e ly than notthatY ap w oul d fac e futur e per s ecut i on i n M al ay s i a on ac countof hi s ethni ci tyor r el i gi on. Y ap s ubm i t t ed evi dence thathi s m otherand hi s s i s t erw er e both vi ct i m s of ro b b e ry , an d th a t h is c o u sin w a s tra g ica llyb e a ten to d e a th in a ro b b e ry . T h e se in c id e n ts are v erytr o u b li n g , b u t w e a g ree w ith the IJ tha t Y ap d id n o t sho w that h is r elati v es w ere ro b b e d b e c a u s e o f

a n yp ro te c te d g ro u n d , a s o p p o s e d to s im p ly b e in g v ic tim s o f c ri m e . F u rth e r, Y a p d id n o t alle g e th a t h e w a s in d a n g e r o f p e rse c u tio n b e c a u se o f h is f a m ily m ember s hi p. W e thus fi nd thats ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the B I A ’ s fi ndi ng thatY ap d id n o t m e e t h is b u rd e n o f e sta b lish in g e lig ib ili tyf o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. 3 F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , 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.