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 ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . A l though M s . H i day at i ’ s name i s s pel l ed “H at ay at e” i n s om e port i ons of 1 th e re c o rd , s ee, e. g. , A dm i n. R . at101, hername i s s pel l ed “H i day at i ” on her p a s s p o rt , s ee i d. at431, and thati s t he s pel l i ng w e w i l l us e. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### F e b r u ary14,2007 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 J ONNY L E ONAR D; RA NDHY AN AN DY GU LTOM ; SI TI HI DAYAT I ; M AR L YN T HI ANOV, P et i t i on ers , v. A LB ER TO R. G O N ZA LES, A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, R e sp o n d e n t. N o. 06- 9516 (N o s . A 9 7 -1 9 2 -5 2 5 , 9 6 -2 9 1 -2 2 2 , 97- 192- 526 & 97- 192- 527) ( P e t i t i o n fo rRe v i e w)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HO LM ES , M c KAY , and BROR BY , C i rcui tJudg es.

J o n n y L e o n a r d , S i t i H i d a ya t i , R a n d h y A n a n d y G u l t o m , a n d M a r l yn 1 T hi anov ( col l ect i vel y“Pet i t i oner s ”) s eek r evi ew of a f i nal or derof r emoval i s s uedM r. L e o n a rd a n d M r. G u lto m file d s e p a ra te a p p lic a tio n s fo r a s y lu m . 2 M s. H iday ati an d M s. T h iano v are li sted o n M r. L eo n ard ’s ap p li ca ti o n an d are there fo re c o n side red d eriva ti v e b en efici aries o f h is ap p li ca ti o n . P eti ti o n ers a re ch all en g ing o n lythe tim eli n ess d eterm ination w ith resp ec t t o M r. G u lt o m ’s a s y lu m a p p lic a tio n . See Pet . B r . at12- 13. -2- b yth e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (B IA ) a ffirm in g th e d e n ial o f th e ir appl i cat i ons foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval underthe I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i t yA ct( I N A ) , and w i thhol di ng of r emoval underthe U ni t ed N at i ons C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re (C A T ). T h e p eti ti o n fo r rev iew is dism issed in p art a n d d e n ie d in p a rt . A sy lu m C la im Pet i t i oner s chal l enge the I J ’ s det erm i nat i on thatM r . G ul t om ’ s as y l um appl i cat i on w as unt i m el y . A n as y l um appl i cat i on m us tbe “f i l ed w i thi n 1 y ear 2 a f t e rth e d a t e o f

th e a l i e n ’ s a r r i v a l i n t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s . ” 8 U. S . C. § 1158( a) ( 2) ( B ) . Pet i t i oner s conce de thatt he appl i cat i on w as unt i m el y , butt hey argue t hat M r. G ult om i s ent i t l ed to an ex cepti on t o the one -y ear deadli ne b ecause he demonstr at ed “e xtr aor di naryci r cumst ance s r el at i ng t o the del ayi n fi l i ng, ” i d. § 1 1 5 8 (a )( 2 )( D ). Pr i ort o t he ena ctm entof the R E A L I D A cti n M ay2005, court s di d not have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew a t i m el i nes s det erm i nat i on m ade unde rs ect i on 1 1 5 8 (a )( 2 ). See i d. § 1158( a) ( 3) . A ft ert he R E A L I D A ct , court s w er e gi ven l i m i t ed j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew “cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s orques t i ons of l aw ” r el at ed to th e tim e lin e s s d e te rm in a tio n . D i al l o v. G onz al es , 447 F. 3d 1274, 1281-3-

( 10th C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) ) . “H ow ever , chal l enges d ire c ted so lelya t th e a g e n c y ’s d isc re tio n a rya n d fa c tu a l d e ter m in a tio n s re m a in out s i de the s cope of

j udi ci al r evi ew . ” Id . Pet i t i oner s ’ ar gum entfocus es on the all eg ed fa ctua l ci rcu m stan ce s inv o lved in the d elay ed fil ing o f M r. G u lt o m ’s as y l um appl i cat i on and the I J ’ s di s cr et i onarydeci s i on thatM r . G ul t om had not e sta b lish e d h is e n tit lem e n t to a n e x c e p tio n to th e o n e -y e a r fili n g d e a d lin e . T h is ar gum entdoes notr ai s e a c ons t i tut i onal cl ai m ora ques t i on of l aw . W e do not h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w th is typ e o f c h a lle n g e . S e e id . W i t h h o l d i n g o f

Re mo v a l Cl a i ms P e tit io n e rs c o n ten d th a t th e IJ e rre d in m a k in g h is a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty fi ndi ng and thatthe r ecor d as a w hol e s uppor t s t hei rcl ai m s forw i thhol di ng of r emoval underthe I N A and the C A T . Pet i t i oner s es s ent i al l ycl ai m t hatt heyfea r r eturni ng t o I ndones i a bec aus e theyw i l l s uffe rper s ecut i on att he hands of M s . H i day at i ’ s fami l ydue t o t hei rC hr i s t i an r el i gi ous bel i efs . T he I J found that the pet i t i oner s ’ t es t i m onyon t hi s i s s ue w as notcr edi bl e. H e r eas oned thati tw as notpl aus i bl e thatM s . H i day at i ’ s al l egedl ydevoutM us l i m fami l yw oul d nothave uncover ed thei rC hr i s t i an fa i th, i f ( as t he I J found) t heypr act i ced i tnearher fami l yi n I ndones i a for18 y ear s . A dm i n. R . at71- 74. A n I J ’ s cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on w i l l be uphel d “s o l ong as t he I J pr ovi des s peci fi c, cogentr eas ons fordi s bel i evi ng the w i tnes s ’ t es t i m ony . ” E lz ourv. A s h c r o ft, 3 7 8 F .3 d 1 1 4 3 , 1 1 5 2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( q u o ta tio n a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ).-4-

A n adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on m aybe bas ed on i ncons i s t enci es i n the w i tnes s ’ t es t i m ony , l ack of s uffi ci entdet ai l , i m pl aus i bi l i ty , ort es t i m oni al d e m e a n o r. Id . a t 1 1 5 2 -5 3 . “A n IJ’ s fin d in g th a t an a p p lica n t’s te stim o n yis i m pl aus i bl e maynotbe bas ed upon s pecul at i on, conj ectur e, oruns uppor t ed per s onal opi ni on. ” Id. a t 1 1 5 3 . T he I J s uppor t ed hi s adver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng w i th evi dence fr om the r ecor d. H e not ed thatthe pet i t i oner s t es t i fi ed thatthei rchi l dr en att ended r el i gi ous s chool forabouttw el ve y ear s eac h and thatthe chi l dr en had t o w ear uni form s fr om the C hr i s t i an s chool . A l s o, ther e w as a per i od of t i m e w hen M r . G ul t om l i ved w i th hi s gr andpar ent s w hen he w as a chi l d and, acc or di ng t o t he tes tim o n y , h is m o th e r c a m e to p ick h im u p e v e ryd a ya n d h e c o n tin u e d to g o to the C hri st i an scho ol. T he IJ concluded that “the fa m i l i es l i ved i n rel at i velycl ose p rox im ityto o n e a n o ther” an d that itw as “ inco n ce ivab le . . . that if th eyw ere in d e e d p ra c ticin g C h ristia n s th a t th e ir p ra c tice w o u ld n o t h a v e c o m e to lig h t w h ile theyw er e l i vi ng i n I ndones i a. ” A dm i n. R . at72. In o rde r t o estab li sh w ith h o lding o f re m o v al un d er the IN A , p eti ti o n ers m u st s h o w 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 p e rse c u ted u p o n th e ir re tu rn to In d o n e s ia . Wo ld e me s ke lv . I NS , 2 5 7 F .3 d 1 1 8 5 , 1 1 9 3 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). A s di s cus s ed above , t he I J found thatpet i t i oner s ’ t es t i m onyaboutpot ent i al p erse cu ti o n fro m their relat ives w as n o t cred ible an d that the fac t th at th eyw ere abl e t o l i ve i n I ndones i a for18 y ear s and al l egedl ypur s ue thei rr el i gi ous-5-

act i vi t i es s how s thattheyar e abl e t o l i ve i n I ndones i a w i thouts er i ous harm bei ng i nfl i ct ed on them byt hei rr el at i ves . T he I J al s o not ed thatthe D epart m entof St at e r eporti ndi cat ed thatJ ehovah’ s W i tnes s es , anotherC hr i s t i an denomi nat i on, e njo y e d a h ig h d e g re e o f re lig io u s f

re e d o m in In d o n e s ia . A d m in . R . a t 7 4 . M or eover , M r . L eonar d t es t i fi ed thathe w as abl e t o w or s hi p fr eel yas a C hr i s t i an in In d o n e s ia . Id. at 12 6 . S u b stan ti al ev iden ce in the rec o rd su p p o rt s the IJ’s det erm i nat i on t hatpet i t i oner s had notm etthei rbur den of e s t abl i s hi ng ent i t l ement u n d e r t h e IN A to w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l. In order t o sat i sfythe requ i rem ents un der the C A T , an ap pli cant m ust es t abl i s h thati ti s m or e l i kel yt han notthathe ors he w oul d be t or tur ed i f r eturned t o the pr opos ed countr yof r emoval . 8 C . F. R . § 208. 16( c) ( 4) . T he I J concl uded thatpet i t i oner s w er e i nel i gi bl e forC A T r el i ef be caus e thi s pr ovi s i on “r equi r es t he r es pondent s t o s how atl eas tacqui es cenc e i n t or tur e bya governm entoffi ci al , or s om eone a ct i ng w i th offi ci al author i ty ” and pe t i t i oner s had fa i l ed t o s how any k ind o f m istrea tm en t atthe h an d s o f th e a u tho ri ti es. A d m in. R . at 75 . T h e IJ c o rr e c tly a rt ic u la te d th e o p e ra tiv e le g a l p ri n c ip le . Fer r y v. G onz al es , 457 F. 3d 1117, 1130- 31 ( 10 C i r . 2006) . A nd pet i t i oner s have notpoi nt ed t o anyevi dence th i n the r ecor d t o s uppor tthi s cl ai m . B oth M s . H i day at i and M r . L eonar d t es t i fi ed th a t th e yh a d n e v e r b e e n h a rm e d b yth e In d o n e s ia n g o v e rn m e n t. Id . a t 1 2 2 , 1 4 8 . T h e IJ ’s d e c is io n 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 in th e re c o rd .-6-

T he p et i t i on for r eview as t o the asy l um cl ai m i s DI S M I S S ED forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on. A s t o t he w i thhol di ng of r emoval cl ai m s undert he I N A and the C A T , the p et i t i on i s DENI ED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt J er om e A . H ol m es C i r cui tJ udge