2007 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 4-30-2007 

# S u gi ar t o 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 . 05-3511

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_2007

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 2007 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 " S u gi ar t o v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1187. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1187*H onor abl e D avi d R . H ans en, Seni orC i r cui tJ udge forthe Ei ghth C i r cui tC our tof

A ppeal s , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 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. 05- 3511

___________ T ONY DJ AJ ADI S UGI AR T O; HONNI S UGI AR T O; ANGE L I NA NATASHA LE VAK AR, P eti ti o n ers

v. AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T HE U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

___________ 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 ( N os . A 79- 730- 981, A 97- 486- 224, A 97- 486- 225) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : M iriam K . M ill s

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

A pr i l 11, 2007 B efore: S M ITH , N Y G A A R D , and H A N S E N , C i rcui tJudg es. *2 ( Fi l ed: A pr i l 30, 2007)

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udge.

P eti ti o n ers T o n yDjaj ad i Su g iart o , H o n n i Su g iart o an d their da u g h ter, A ngel i na N at as ha Levakar , appea l fr om the deni al of thei rappl i cat i on foras y l um and for w i t hhol di ng of r emoval undert he I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i t yA ct , and thei rr eques tfor re lief u n d e r th e U n ited N a tio n s C o n v e n tio n A g a in st T o rtu re a n d O th e r F o rm s o f C ru e l, I nhum an orD egr adi ng T r eatm entorPuni s hm ent( “C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e”) . For t he r eas ons s t at ed bel ow , w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on. I. B ecause w e w ri t e sol el yfor the b enef i tof the part i es, w e reci t e on l ytho se fac t s nece s s aryt o ouranal y s i s . Pet i t i oner s ar e nat i ves and ci t i zens of I ndones i a, of C hinese ethn i ci t y , and w ere adm i t t ed to the U nit ed S t at es on o r about A pri l 30 , 19 99 as n o n -im m ig ra n ts w ith a u th o riz a tio n to re m a in in th is c o u n tryf o r a p e rio d n o t to e x c e e d six m ont hs . T heyr emai ned bey ond t hatdat e w i thoutperm i s s i on and w er e s erved w i t h a No t i c e t o Ap p e a rc h a r g i n g t h e m w i t h r e mo v a b i l i t yu n d e rS e c t i o n 2 3 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B) o f th e I NA forr emai ni ng i n t he U ni t ed St at es l ongerthan perm i t t ed. Pet i t i oner s conce ded3

r emovabi l i t yforr emai ni ng i n t hi s countr yw i t houtperm i s s i on, butr eques t ed a gr antof a s y lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l, a n d in th e a lte rn a tiv e , v o lu n ta ry d e p a rt u re . P e tit io n e r c laim s th e yw e re p e rse c u ted in In d o n e sia o n a c c o u n t o f th e ir C hr i s t i an C hi nes e i dent i t yand thatt heys uffe r ed harm i n I ndones i a i n t he form of di s cr i m i nat i on dur i ng chi l dhood, t heftbynat i ves , cur s es and s pel l s bynei ghbor s and cow or ker s , unw ant ed s exual t ouchi ng of H onni Sugi art o i n publ i c, the as s aul tof Tony Sugi ar t o bys occe rfans aft era mat ch i n 1999, s t ones thr ow n atthei rchur ch and fi r ecr acke r s t hr ow n att hei rhom e, t he r obberyof H onni Sugi art o i n 1997, and var i ous in c id e n ts o f

v e rb a l a b u s e . A p p e n d ix 3 1 1 -3 1 7 . A ft era hea r i ng, I m m i gr at i on J udge M i r i am K . M i l l s det erm i ned thatthe P eti ti o n ers d id n o t hav e ind ividu ali ze d fe ars o f f u ture p erse cu ti o n . A d d it ion all y , the IJ fo u n d that the P eti ti o n ers f ail ed to ti m elyfil e f

o r asy lum , o v erstay ed their visas b ef o re fi l i ng and , t hatt her e w er e no extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s w hi ch w oul d have j us t i fi ed a w aive r of

the o n e-y ea r fil ing d ea d li n e. A lso, th e IJ d iscred it ed P eti ti o n ers’ fe ars o f h arm b e c a u se th e ir f

a m ilym e m b e rs ( o ld e r sib lin g s a n d o th e r f a m ilym e m b e rs) re m a in in I n d o n e s i a u n h a r m e d . T h u s , t h e I J c o n c l u d e d th a tP e t i t i o n e r s f a i l e d t o s h o w b y a pr eponder ance of the evi dence t hatt heyw oul d be harm ed i f theyr eturned t o I ndones i a on t he bas i s of thei rethni ci t yort hei rr el i gi on. T he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s adopt ed and af fi r m ed the I J ' s deci s i on, fi ndi ng Pet i t i oner s s ubj ectt o r emoval as char ged and d e n y in g th e ira p p lic a tio n f o r a s y lu m a s n o t tim e ly f ile d .4 II. W e b e g i n b yn o t i n g t h a twe l a c k j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w t h e a s y l u m c l a i m. U ndert he t eac hi ngs of T a rr a w a lly v . A sh c ro

ft , w e h a v e n o p o w e rt o e x a m i n e th e B I A 's det erm i nat i on t hatt he Pet i t i oner s ’ as y l um paper s w er e notfi l ed w i t hi n t he one- y ear l i m i t at i ons per i od. 338 F. 3d 180, 185 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( i nt erpr et i ng 8 U . S. C . § 1158, w hi ch s t at es t hatno cour ts hal l have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the A t t orneyG ener al ' s det erm i nat i on t hatan al i en has fi l ed an a s y l um appl i cat i on i n an unt i m el yfas hi on) . W e al s o l ack the au tho ri tyto rev iew an yjud g m en t th at th e o n e-y ea r l im itw as n o t t o ll ed b yex tr ao rdin ary c ir c u m s ta n c e s . Id ; see al so Sukw anputr a et

al . v. A t t or ney G eneral , 434 F. 3d 627, 633 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). III .

W e do have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the deni al of Pet i t i oner ' 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 . F o r w ith h o lding o f re m o v al un d er 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 (b )(3 )(A ), an a lien m u st d e m o n stra te “ a c lea r p ro b a b ili ty ” o f p e rse c u tio n to a v o id d e p o rt a tio n . Ch a n gv . I NS , 119 F. 3d 1055, 1066 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . I n otherw or ds , an a l i e n m u s ts h o w i ti s “ m o r e l i k e l y t h a n n o t ” th a tb e c a u s e o f “ r a c e , r e l i g i o n , n a t i o n a l i t y, m em b ersh ip in a p arti cu lar soc ial g rou p , o r po li ti ca l op inion , ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 3 1 (b)(3 )(A ), he w i l l be subj ect ed to “threat s t o li fe, con fi nem ent, t orture, and econ om i c res t ri ct i on s so s ever e thatt heycons t i tut e a thr eatt o l i fe orfr eedom. ” L i Wu L i n v . I NS , 238 F. 3d 239, 2 4 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ); Fa t i n v . I NS , 12 F. 3d 1233, 1240 ( 3d C i r . 1993) . Forr el i ef unde rt he5

C A T , an al i en musts how t hat“i ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthathe ors he w oul d be t or tur ed i f r emoved t o t he pr opos ed countr yof r emoval . ” A ugus tv. R i dge , 395 F. 3d 123, 151 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T h e re c o rd h e re , p a rticu lar lyth e P e tit io n e rs’ tes tim o n y , d o e s n o t co m p e l a concl us i on contr aryt o t hatr eac hed bythe I J and the B I A . T he r obber i es and other offe ns es t hatvi ct i m i zed the Pet i t i oner s i n I ndones i a do notcons t i tut e pas tper s ecut i on, n o r w ere theysu ff

ici en tl y“se v ere ” to ju sti fya f ind ing o f p ast p erse cu ti o n o r a w e ll-fo u n d e d f

e a r o f p e rse c u tio n in th e f

u tu re . W e h a v e o f

ten sta ted th a t ra n d o m in c id e n ts o f v io le n c e a re n o t p e rs e c u tio n w a rr a n tin g w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l u n d e r t h e IN A . See, e .g ., L ie v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 9 6 F . 3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 4 , 5 3 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). A d d it ion all y , the re co rd cl ear l ys uppor t s t he I J ’ s det erm i nat i on thatPet i t i oner s fai l ed t o es t abl i s h a w el l - founded fea rof futur e per s ecut i on w er e theyt o r eturn t o I ndones i a. T he r ecor d demonstr at es t hat m ember s of the Pet i t i oner s ’ fami l yr emai n i n I ndones i a. A s the r ecor d r evea l s , the P et i t i on ers on l yprovided v agu e gen eral i t i es abou tthe all eged treatm ent of et hn i c C hinese C h ristia n s in In d o n e sia a n d f a iled to p re se n t an ye v id e n c e c o n c e rn in g th re a ts to th e ir r emai ni ng fami l ym ember s s afe t yand w el l - bei ng.

W e fi nd t hats ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the I J ’ s det erm i nat i on thatthe p e tit io n e rs f

a iled to e sta b lish th a t itis “ m o re lik e lyth a n n o t” th a t th e yw o u ld b e su b jec t to p e rs e c u tio n if

th e yw e re to re tu rn to In d o n e s ia . S e e L ie , 396 F. 3d at537. I V.A c c o rd in g ly , the p e tit io n f o r re v iew w ill b e D IS M IS S E D in so f a r a s it r el at es t o t he as y l um cl ai m and w i l l be D E N I E D i ns ofaras i tr el at es t o w i t hhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef unde rt he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e.

6