N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JOHAN JOHNY SUM O LANG; B ER AW ATI NOTOR

EDJO, Pe titione rs,
v. ER IC H. HOLDER , JR
. , Attorne y Ge ne ra l , R

e sponde n t . No. 08-73164 Age n c y Nos. A095-295-985 A095-295-986
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

rc h 5, 2013 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PAEZ a

nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s, a nd KENNELLY, Distric t Judge
. ** Joha n Sum ola n g a nd B e ra wati Notore djo, a

m arrie d c ouple , a

p pe a l from

a de c ision by

the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) upholding the Im m igration 

# FIL ED
JUL 25 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.
** The Honora

ble M a tthe w F. Ke nne lly , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the N orthe rn Distric t of Illinois, sitting by de signa tion.Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de nia l of the i r a pplic a tions for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture . In a n opinion file d c onc urre ntly with this me m orandum , we a d d re ss M s. Notore djo’ s c la im s a nd gra nt, in pa rt, he r pe tition for re vie w. He re , we a ddre ss M r. Sum ola ng’ s c la im s. The B IA did not ruleon the m e rits of M r. Sum ola ng’ s a sy lum

c la im be c a

use he file d his a pplic a tion in 2002, we ll pa st the one -y e ar de a dline pre sc ribe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1158(a )(2)(B ). M r. Sum o la ng a rgue s tha t the B IA e rre d

by not e xc using his la te filing a s the c onse que nc e of (1) e xtra ordina ry pe rsona l c i rc um sta

nc e s or (2)
c ha nge d c irc um s ta

nc e s in Indone sia . 8 U.S.C . § 1158(a )(2)(D). As the se are both
argum e nts he a dva

nc e d jointly with M s. Notore djo, we a d dre sse d the m in our publishe d opinion. For the sam e re a sons sta te d the re , we do not ha

v e jurisdic tion to re vie w M r. Sum ola

ng’ s first c onte ntion, se e Gaspary an v . Holde r , 707 F.3d 1130, 1133–34 (9th C ir. 2013), a nd we re je c t his se c ond c onte ntion. Se e Sumolang
v . Holde r , No. 08-73164, slip op. (9th C ir. 2013). W e c onc lude tha

t ne ithe r of the grounds on whic h the B IA uphe ld the IJ’ s
a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm inat ion (whic h provide d the ba sis for de ny i ng M r. Sum ola ng’ s re m a ining c la im s) is supporte d by substa ntia l e vide n c e . First, theB IA pointe d to M r. Sum ola

ng’ s “ inc onsiste nt” te s tim ony a bout his da

ughte r’ s birth date . B ut M r. Sum ola

ng’ s te s tim ony

a bout the birth da

t e wa s not inc onsiste nt. 2R a the r, the IJ de e m e d M r. Sum ola ng’ s c onsiste nt e xpla

nation for thec onflic ting date s liste d on his da

ughte r’ s offic ia l birth a

nd de a th c e rtific a te s i mplausible . In
re je c ting M r. Sum ola

ng’ s e xpla

nation tha t the disc re p anc y re sulte d from poor bookke e ping, theIJ obse rve d: “ Indone sia is a c ountry with a burge oning popula tion . . . . If the

Indone sia

n re c ord ke e p e rs sim

p ly ignore the fa c t s whe n
m aking re c ords, c ha os would soon re sult in Indone sia n soc i e ty .” This re a soning is

“ fa ta l ly fla we d,” Osorio v . IN

S , 99 F.3d 928, 931 (9th C ir. 1996) (quoting Aguile ra-C

ota v . IN S , 914 F.2d 1375, 1381 (9th C ir. 1990)), be c a use it is totally spe c ulative , K

aur v . Ashc roft, 379 F.3d 876, 887 (9th C ir. 2004), supe rse de d by statute on othe r grounds , REAL ID Ac t of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Sta t. 231, a nd it is a d ditiona lly

insuffic ie nt be c a

use it is underm ine d by

the State De pa rtm e nt C ountry

R e ports in thea dm inistra tive re c ord. For e xam

ple , the De pa rtm e nt re p orte d in 2003 tha t Indone sia ’ s “ c ivil re gistra tion sy ste m c ontinue d to disc rim inate a ga inst m e m be rs of m inority

re l igions,”re sulting in wide spre a d fa ilure to prope rly

re giste r the births of those individuals. Se c ond, the B IA pointe d to c ontra dic tions theIJ ide ntifie d in M r. Sum ola ng’ s te s tim ony

a bout his time in polic e c u stody
. B ut the se c ontra dic tions
are e ithe r none xiste nt or do not go to the he art of M r. Sum ola ng’ s c la im
. Se e Singh
v . Gonzale

s , 439 F.3d 1100, 1108 (9th C ir. 2006). TheIJ be lie v e d tha t M r. 3Sum ola

ng did not te stify he ha d be e n be a te n with a stic k until ve ry

late in the proc e e dings, but M

r. Sum ola ng c l e arly m e ntione d the be a ting in a de c la ra tion
a tta c h e d to his a sy lum

a pplic at ion. The IJ a l so fla gge d a sta te m e nt in M r. Sum ola ng’ s a pplic a tion tha

t he wa s de prive d of food a nd wa t e r, de e m ing this irre c onc i la

ble with his te stim o ny

tha t he wa s give n “ filthy ” food a nd dra in wa

te r. This is not ne c e ssa

rily a c ontra d ic tion, but if it is, it doe s not e nha nc e the de gre e of the a lle ge d pe rse c ution. Se e Stoy anov v . IN S , 172 F.3d 731, 736 (9th C i r. 1999). Fina lly , the IJ note d tha

t M r. Sum o la

ng sta te d in his a

pplic a tion tha

t re lative s brought him

food a nd wa te r to pre ve nt him

from sta rving in c ustody , but he late r te stifie d tha

t this wa s a

m i sta ke by his a pplic a t ion pre pa

re r, and the only

food c am e from his c a ptors. Any

disc re pa nc y a bout thesourc e of the food a va ila ble while M r. Sum ola

ng wa s be ing de ta ine d a

nd be ate n by

offic e rs who ha d le arne d of his
re ligion is periphe ra l to his c l a im and to there a sons M r. Sum ola ng fe ars re turning to Indone sia
. Se eSingh , 439 F.3d a t 1108–09. Furtherm ore , suc h an inc onsiste nc y c annot support a

n a d ve rse c re dibility

finding, a

b se nt othe r e vide nc e of dishone sty , whe n it is a

ttributa ble to the a

pplic ant’ s use of a transla t or to pre pa

re his
a pplic a tion. Se e K

aur v . Gonzale

s , 418 F.3d 1061, 1064–65 (9th C i r. 2005). The IJ a nd the B IA’ s e rrors we re the produc t of spe c ulat ion a nd a n inc o m ple te re vie w of the c onte nts of M r. Sum ola ng’ s a pplic a tion, indic a ting tha

t 4both stra ine d to find re a sons to support a n a dve rse c re dibility

finding but faile d to do so. Se e Soto-Olarte

v . Holde r , 555 F.3d 1089, 1094–95 (9th C ir. 2009). W e the re fore instruc t the a g e nc y on re m and to de e m

M r. Sum ola

n g c re d ible and
a djudic a te his c la im s for withholding of re m o va l a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture
. Se e Le i Li v . Holde r , 629 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th C ir. 2011); C haw la v . Holde r , 599 F.3d 998, 1009 (9th C ir. 2010). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WG RANT E D in par t, DE NIE D in par t, DISM ISSE D in par t, and RE M ANDE D . Cost aw ar de d to the pe titione r s.

5