2008 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 3-3-2008 

# Rudolphu s 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 . 06-4684

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_2008

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 2008 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 " R udo lp hus v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1482. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1482NOT 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. 06- 4684

_____________ A N D RE A S RU D O LPH U S, 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 Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A N o. A 96- 265- 189) Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on orabl e V i ncen tF erl i se Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary29, 2008 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, and R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udges

and TH O M PSO N , *D i s tr i ctJ udge. ( Fi l ed: M ar ch 3, 2008) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

*H onor abl e A nne E. T hom ps on, Seni orJ udge of the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort he D is tr ic t o f

N e w J e rs e y , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n .2

R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJudge . A ndr eas R udol phus , a ci t i zen of I ndones i a, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the fi nal or der o f th e Bo a r d o f

I mmi g r a t i o n Ap p e a l s ( “ BI A” ) d e n y i n g h i s a p p l i c a t i o n s f o ra s y l u m, w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( C A T ) . Fort he re a s o n s d is c u s s e d b e lo w , w e w ill d e n yR u d o lp h u s ’ p e titio n . I. F a cts R u d o lp h u s c la im s th a t h e w a s p e rs e c u te d in In d o n e s ia e v e r s in c e h is c h ild h o o d , due t o hi s C hr i s t i an r el i gi on and C hi nes e ethni ci ty , and mai nt ai ns thathe w oul d be per s ecut ed aga i n i f for ced t o r eturn. A s s uppor tforhi s cl ai m of pas tper s ecut i on, R udol phus r ecount ed the fol l ow i ng i nci dent s i n t es t i m onybefor e the I m m i gr at i on J udge (“I J”) and / or i n an affidavi tthat he subm i t t ed to the IJ:

• I n A pr i l 1979, s ever al M us l i m s ki cked hi m off hi s bi cy cl e, for ced hi m atkni fe poi ntt o gi ve them hi s m oneyand hi s bi cy cl e, and ca l l ed hi m “s tupi d C hi nes e. ” (A .R . 6 8 -6 9 , 3 8 6 .)

• I n M a y1 9 9 8 , d u r i n g th e wi d e s p r e a d r i o t s t a r g e t i n g e th n i c Ch i n e s e , 1 5 M u s l i ms y el l i ng ant i - C hi nes e s l ur s br oke i nt o hi s hous e, s pi ton hi m and punche d hi m i n t he head a s he fl ed fors afe ty , l oot ed the hous e, and s etfi r e t o hi s father ’ s car . T he p o li ce d id n o t help fin d the lo o ters. (A . R . 6 9 -70 , 3 8 6 -87 )

• D ur i ng the M ay1998 r i ot s , hi s uncl e’ s hous e w as l oot ed and burned dow n by3

n ati v e In d o n esian s. (A . R . 3 8 6 . )

• In Ju ly1 9 9 8 , tw o n a tiv e In d o n e sia n s o n a m o to rc y c le p u lled u p a lo n g sid e h is c o u sin ’s c a r, p o in ted a k n if e a t h is c o u sin , an d d e m a n d e d h is m o n e y . H is c o u sin w as a b le t o sp ee d aw ayfro m them , b u t no t bef o re the yfired tw o b u ll ets at his ca r, sh att ering a sid e v iew m irror a n d side w ind o w . (A . R . 7 3 -74 , 3 8 7 . )

• I n J une 1999, tw o nat i ve I ndones i ans ki cked hi m off hi s m ot orbi ke, appr oache d hi m w i th a kni fe, s ai d “D i r tyC hi nes e, gi ve us y ourm oney , ” and t ook hi s m oney an d m o torb ike. (A . R . 7 2 , 3 8 6 . )

• I n J anuary2000, R udol phus tr avel ed t o J akart a t o s ee a fr i end, buthi s fr i end w as notatthe tr ai n s t at i on t o m eethi m w hen he a rr i ved. A M us l i m offe r ed t o gi ve R udol phus a r i de t o hi s fr i end’ s hous e. T he s tr angerdr ove R udol phus t o a qui et stre e t w h e re h e a n d o n e o r m o re o th e r p e o p le h e ld u p R u d o lp h u s a t k n if e p o in t, s ai d “D i r tyC hi nes e, t ake of f ourw at ch and gi ve me y ourbag, ” and t ook hi s w at ch, b ag , an d m o n ey . (A . R . 7 1 -72 , 3 8 7 . )

• H e w ant ed t o become a pas t or , butdi d notdo s o becaus e he thoughti tw oul d put hi s l i fe i n j eopar dybeca us e of the country ’ s M us l i m m aj or i tyand the fa ctthat

“ m a n yc h u rc h e s a re b u rn e d in In d o n e s ia .” (A .R . 7 5 -7 6 .) In a d d it ion , R u d o lph u s su b m itted to the IJ a co ll ec ti o n o f a rt icl es a n d rep o rt s as s u p p o rt forhi s cl ai m thathe w oul d fac e per s ecut i on i f he r eturned ther e.4 I I . A s yl um T h e IJ d en ied R u d o lph u s’ asy lum claim b ec au se h is ap p li ca ti o n w as f il ed m o re than one y earaft erhi s arr i val i n t he U ni t ed St at es and R udol phus fai l ed t o es t abl i s hed the e x is te n c e o f

e x tr a o rd in a ry o r c h a n g e d c ir c u m s ta n c e s to ju s tif yh is u n tim e ly f

ilin g . See 8 C . F . R . § 1 2 0 8 . 4 ( a ) . T h e B I A a d o p t e d a n d a f f i r m e d th i s p o r t i o n o f

th e I J ’ s d e c i s i o n . We d o n o t h a v e ju risd ictio n to re v iew th is iss u e . 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (a )(2 )-(3 ); Ja rb o u g h v. A tt ’y G en . , 4 8 3 F . 3 d 1 8 4 , 1 8 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ).

I I I . W i t hhol di ng of

R em oval I n or dert o qual i fyforw i thhol di ng of r emoval , an appl i cantm us tdemonstr at e that i ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthathe w i l l be per s ecut ed i f for ced t o r eturn t o the pr opos ed c o u n tr yo f

re m o v a l. Mu la n g a v . A sh c ro ft , 3 4 9 F .3 d 1 2 3 , 1 3 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). A re b u ttab le pr es um pt i on ar i s es thatan appl i canthas m etthi s s t andar d i f he e s t abl i s hes thathe s uffe r ed “pa s tper s ecut i on” i n t hatcountry . 8 C . F. R . § 208. 16( b) ( 1) . A n i nci dentors er i es of i nci dent s cons t i tut es “per s ecut i on” i f ( 1) i toccurr ed on ac countof the appl i cant ’ s r ace , re lig io n , n a tio n a lity , m e m b e rsh ip in a p a rticu lar so c ial g ro u p , o r p o lit ica l o p in io n ; (2 ) it w as carr i ed outbythe governm entorbyfor ces thatthe governm entw as ei therunw i l l i ng o r u n a b le to c o n tr o l; a n d (3 ) t h e h a rm s u f f e re d w a s s u f

f ic ie n tly se v e re . Mulanga , 349 F. 3d at132. T he l as tpr ong s et s a hi gh barand i s onl yful fi l l ed by“[t ] hr eat s t o l i fe, c o n f in e m e n t, t o rtu re , an d e c o n o m ic r e stric tio n s s o se v e re th a t th e yc o n stitu te a th re a t to5

l i fe orfr eedom. ” Fa t i n v . I NS , 12 F. 3d 1233, 1240 ( 3d C i r . 1993) . Per s ecut i on “does not encompas s al l tr eatm entthatours oci etyr egar ds as unfai r , unj us t , oreven unl aw ful or uncons t i tut i onal . ” Id . T h e r e f o r e , “ [ a ] b u s i v e tr e a t m e n ta n d h a r a s s m e n t , w h i l e a l w a ys d e p lo ra b le ” d o n o t a lw a y s q u a lif y . Jar bough , 4 8 3 F .3 d a t1 9 1 . A n appl i cantcan a l s o pr ove thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthathe w i l l be p e rse c u ted u p o n re tu rn in g to th e p ro p o se d c o u n tryo f re m o v a l b ye sta b lish in g th a t, w ith in thatcountry , ther e i s a “pol i cyorpr act i ce” of per s ecut i ng per s ons s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed t o the appl i cant . 8 C . F. R . § 208. 16( b) ( 1) . T o qual i fyas a “pa t t ern orpr act i ce, ” the per s ecut i on m us tbe “s y s t emi c, pervas i ve, oror gani zed. ” L ie v . A sh c ro ft , 3 9 6 F . 3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). W e h a v e ju risd ictio n o v e r th e B IA ’s d e n ial o f w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l p u rsu a n t to 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) . I n s i tuat i ons l i ke thi s , w her e the B I A adopt s and af fi r m s the dec i s i on o f th e IJ , w e re v ie w th e d e c is io n o f th e IJ . P ar t

yka v . A t t ’

y G en. , 417 F. 3d 408, 411 ( 3d C i r. 20 05 ). W hetheran ap pli cant has dem on strat ed p astpersecut i on or ot herw i se es t abl i s hed a l i kel i hood of futur e per s ecut i on i s a ques t i on of fa ct , w hi ch w e r evi ew for s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . A b d ill e v . A sh c ro ft , 242 F. 3d 477 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . T hi s m eans that w e m u st up h o ld the ag en cy ’s find ing s “u n less the e v iden ce n o t on lysu p p o rt s a c o n tr ary concl us i on, butcompel s i t . ” I d. at484.6 A . P as t P ers ecut i on T he I J thoughtthatR udol phus w as cr edi bl e, butfound on tw o al t ernat e gr ounds thathe had f

ai l ed t o pr ove pas tper s ecut i on. Fi r s t , acc or di ng t o the I J , R udol phus di d not e sta b lish th a t th e in c id e n ts d e sc rib e d a b o v e w e re o n a c c o u n t o f h is re lig io n o r h is ethni ci ty ; r ather , he ( and hi s fami l y ) w er e “s etupon bycr i m i nal s w ho w i s hed t o r ob [ th e m ].” ( A .R . 4 0 .) S e c o n d , the IJ c o n c lu d e d th a t n o n e o f th e in c id e n ts w e re su f

f icie n tly s ever e t o qual i fyas per s ecut i on; r ather , theyw er e “nothi ng m or e than s tr eetcr i m e. ” (A . R . 4 0 . ) R udol phus ar gues on appea l thatthe I J ’ s concl us i on on ei thergr ound w as not s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . W e di s agr ee. W hi l e the I J m ayhave mi ni m i zed the m i s tr eatm entthatR udol phus s uffe r ed bydes cr i bi ng i tas “nothi ng m or e than s tr eet cr i m e, ” thi s i s nota s i tuat i on i n w hi ch the evi dence compel s the conc l us i on thatthe m i s tr eatm entw as s ever e enough t o qual i fyas per s ecut i on. T hus , w e conc l ude that su b sta n tial e v id e n c e su p p o rte d th e IJ’ s f in d in g th a t R u d o lp h u s f a iled to e sta b lish th a t h is e x p e ri e n c e s ro s e to th e le v e l o f th e “ e x tr e m e c o n c e p t” o f p e rs e c u tio n . S e e Fa tin , 12 F. 3d at1243. Si nce thi s i s an i ndepende nt l ys uffi ci entgr ound forfi ndi ng thatR udol phus fai l ed t o demonstr at e pas tper s ecut i on, w e nee d notaddr es s w hethers ubs t ant i al evi dence supp ort ed the I J’ s conclusi on that the inci den t s di d n ot occur on acc ou nt of R ud olphus’ C h in e s e e th n ic ity o r h is C h ri s tia n ity.7 B . P at t ern or Pract i ce of P ers ecut i on T he I J al s o found thatR udol phus fai l ed t o demonstr at e a pa t t ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on of ethni c C hi nes e orC hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a, ei therbythe I ndones i an governm entorbyfor ces thatthe governm enti s unw i l l i ng orunabl e t o contr ol , s uch that f u tu re p e rse c u tio n w a s p ro b a b le. In su p p o rt o f th is f in d in g , the IJ e m p h a siz e d th a t, w h ile ther e maybe uncontr ol l ed ant i - C hr i s t i an vi ol ence i n s om e part s of the country( s uch as Sul aw es i and the M al uku I s l ands ) , R udol phus di d notes t abl i s h thatther e i s uncontr ol l ed ant i - C hr i s t i an orant i - C hi nes e vi ol ence on the i s l and of J ava, w hi ch i s w her e R udol phus liv e d a n d w h e re h is f

a m ily a p p e a rs to re m a in . R udol phus ar gues on appea l thatthe I J fai l ed t o adequa t el yaddr es s the i s s ue of “patt ern orpr act i ce” i n t hati tfai l ed t o cons i derthe U . S. St at e D epart m entI nt ernat i onal R el i gi ous Fr eedom R eport s and C ountryR eport s thatR udol phus had s ubm i t t ed as backgr ound m at er i al s . R udol phus r eques t s thatw e ther efor e r emand hi s cas e s o thatt he agenc ycan r e- addr es s the i s s ue havi ng cons i der ed the bac kgr ound m at er i al s . I n hi s or al o p in io n , h o w e v e r, th e IJ s p e c if ica llyin d ica ted th a t h e h a d tak e n th e R e p o rts in to c o n s id e ra tio n in re a c h in g h is d e c is io n . (A .R . 3 6 .) W e f in d n o re a s o n n o t to b e lie v e h im . M o reo v er, ou r i n d ep en d en t r ev iew o f th e b ac k g rou n d m aterial s rev ea ls th at th e IJ’s concl us i on thatther e w as no patt ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . A l though t he R eport s do i ndi cat e that , as the I J acknow l edged, ther e cont i nue to b e in c id e n ts o f

u n c o n tro lled a n ti-C h ristia n v io len c e in In d o n e sia , a re a so n a b leSi nce Rudol phus does notaddr es s i n hi s br i ef the I J ’ s deni al of hi s appl i cat i on for 1 re lie f u n d e r t h e C A T , n e ith e r w ill w e . 8 a d ju d ica to r c o u ld c o n c lu d e th a t th e v io len c e is n o t “s u f f icie n tlyw id e sp re a d ” to c o n stitu te a n a tio n a l p a tte rn o r p ra c tic e o f p e rs e c u tio n . S e e L ie , 3 9 6 F .3 d a t 5 3 7 . Si nce s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the I J ’ s fi ndi ngs r egar di ng pas tper s ecut i on and r egar di ng a patt ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on, w e ther efor e conc l ude thats ubs t ant i al evi dence al s o s uppor t s the I J ’ s fi ndi ng thatR udol phus fai l ed t o demonstr at e thati tw as m o re lik e ly th a n n o t th a t h e w o u ld b e p e rs e c u te d if f o rc e d to re tu rn to In d o n e s ia . A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill n o t d istu rb th e d e n ial o f h is a p p lica tio n f

o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l.

I V . C oncl usi on F o rth e r e a s o n s d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , we wi l l d e n yRu d o l p h u s ’ p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. 1