H o n . Jan e A . R estan i, C h ief Ju d g e, U n it ed S tat es C o u rt * of I nt ernat i onal T r ade, s i tt i ng bydes i gnat i on. . NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N O S. 08- 2351 and 08- 3902 A N D R I S U B R A T A , 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 Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r der o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( N o. A 079- 474- 816) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H on. W al t erA . D ur l i ng

A r gued A pr i l 13, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R and N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udges , and R E ST A N I , J udge * ( Fi l ed: A pr i l 30, 2010) V i ct orP. Fi l i ppi ni , E s q. ( A r gued) R obertW . V yverber g, J r . , E s q. H ol l and & N i ght 131 South D earborn Str eet 30 Fl oor th C hi cago, I L 60603 A tt orney s forPet i t i oner2

E dw ar d J . D uffy , E s q. R . A l exande rG or i ng, E s q. ( A r gued) U ni t ed St at es D epartm entof Jus t i ce O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on, C i vi l D i vi s i on W as hi ngt on, D . C . 20044 A tt orney s forR es pondent

OP I NI ON

S L O V IT E R , C i r cui tJudge . B ef o re u s is th e p eti ti o n o f A n d ri S u b rata fo r rev iew o f tw o d ec isi o n s o f th e B o ard of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) : one r ever s i ng the dec i s i on of the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) t o defe rSubr at a’ s r emoval underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT ortur e ( “C A T ”) and the o th e r d e n y in g S u b ra ta ’s m o tio n to re o p e n . I . Subr at a, an ethni cal l y - C hi nes e C hr i s t i an w ho i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of pr edomi nant l y - M us l i m I ndones i a, w as gr ant ed as y l um i n 2002. A ft erhe w as convi ct ed of an a ggr avat ed fe l onydrug tr aff i cki ng offe ns e thr ee y ear s l at er , the D epartm entof H om el and Secur i ty( “D H S”) fi l ed a mot i on t o t erm i nat e Subr at a’ s as y l um s t atus , w hi ch w as gr ant ed byan I J i n B al t i m or e, M ary l and. Subr at a fi l ed an appl i cat i on for w i thhol di ng of r emoval on the gr ound thathi s offe ns e w as nota “pa rt i cul ar l ys er i ous c r i me ” u n d e rI NA § 2 4 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) . He a l s o s o u g h tr e l i e f u n d e rth e CA T.W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the B I A ’ s or derof r emoval 1 u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(1 ). S e c tio n 1 2 5 2 (a )(4 ) p ro v id e s u s w ith ex clus i ve j ur i s di ct i on overcl ai m s underthe C A T . T he B IA ’s 3 Fol l ow i ng a hea r i ng atw hi ch Subr at a t es t i fi ed thathe fe ar ed he w oul d be det ai ned a n d to rtu re d if

h e w e re re m o v e d to In d o n e sia , the IJ o rd e re d h im re m o v e d b e c a u se h is crim inal co n v ict ion w as f o r a “ p arti cu larl yseriou s crim e.” A p p . at 8. N ev erthe less, the IJ gr ant ed def

err al of r emoval underthe C A T , fi ndi ng thatSubr at a w as l i kel yt o be det ai ned, i nt err ogat ed, and t ortur ed upon r eturn t o I ndones i a bec aus e of hi s s t atus as a cr i m i nal deport ee. T h e IJ r e a so n e d th a t itw o u ldb e “ ig n o rin g c o m m o n se n se to f in d ” th a t In d o n e sia w a s u n lik e ly to d e ta in a n d in te rr o g a te S u b ra ta u p o n h is a rr iv a l in In d o n e s ia . A p p . a t 1 3 . H e adde d that“I ndones i a has a s or di d pas t ” w i th r egar d t o “per s ecut i ng, t ortur i ng and comm i tt i ng s er i ous hum an r i ght s vi ol at i ons . . . . ” A pp. at13. T her efor e, the I J found that Subr at a “methi s bur den of pr oof of e ncount er i ng l i kel ypr os pect i ve and i nt ent i onal i nfl i ct i on of s ever e pai n ors uffe r i ng upon hi s r emoval t o I ndones i a. . . . ” A pp. at15 (refe rri n g to the d ef

init ion o f “ tortu re” in 8 C . F . R . § 1 2 0 8 . 1 8 (a)(1)). D H S ap p e a le d th e IJ ’s o rd e r g ra n tin g S u b ra ta d e f e rr a l o f re m o v a l u n d e r th e C A T . T he B I A “conc l ude[d] thatthe [I J ] err ed i n fi ndi ng that[Subr at a] w oul d be det ai ned, and m or e l i kel ythan notw oul d be t ortur ed upon r eturn t o I ndones i a. ” A pp. at6. I n addi t i on, the B I A not ed that , al though i tdi d notvi ew the I J ’ s rul i ng as one of f act , i t“w oul d fi nd the [I J ] ’ s rul i ng t o be cl ear l yerr oneous . ” A pp. at5 n. 1. 1det erm i nat i ons r egar di ng the l i kel i hood of futur e p erse cut i on or to rtu re a r e r e v ie w e d f

o r s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . W a n gv . A sh c ro

ft , 3 6 8 F . 3 d 3 4 7 , 3 5 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). 4 II. Subr at a’ s pr i nci pal cont ent i on i s thatthe B I A “[e ] ngag[e d] i n i m pr operde novo r evi ew of the [I J ’ s ] fac tual fi ndi ngs ” thatSubr at a w oul d l i kel ybe det ai ned and t ortur ed upon r emoval t o I ndones i a. Pet ’ r ’ s B r . at17. I n Kaplun v. A t torney G eneral , deci ded aft erbr i efi ng i n thi s cas e, w e hel d thatw hen the B I A r evi ew s an I J ’ s det erm i nat i on re g a rd in g w h e th e r to rtu re is lik e lyif a n a lien is re m o v e d to h is o r h e r c o u n tryo f o rig in , it m us tcompartm ent al i ze the “tw o di s t i nctpart s t o the mi xed ques t i on. . . . ” See F. 3d , 2 0 1 0 W L 1 4 0 9 0 1 9 , at * 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 1 0 ). T h e tw o p a rts a re : “( 1 ) w h a t is lik e lyto happen t o the pet i t i oneri f r emoved; and ( 2) does w hati s l i kel yt o happen a m ountt o the l egaldefi ni t i on of t ortur e?” I d. B ec au se th e f

ir st qu esti o n is fac tual, the IJ’s det erm i nat i on as t o w hati s l i kel yt o happen t o the pet i t i oneri f r emoved i s s ubj ectt o cl ear e rr o r r e v ie w b yth e B IA . I d. at*11. E ven s o, “w hetheri m pr i s onm ent , beat i ng, and ext ort i on ar e s ever e enough t o r i s e t o the l evel of t ortur e i s a l egal ques t i on. ” I d. a t * 9 . A s s u c h , th e IJ ’s d e te rm in a tio n p e rt a in in g to th a t q u e s tio n m a yb e re v ie w e d d e n o v o . I d. A lth o u g h the B IA ’s st atem en t th at i ts st an d ard o f re v iew w ith reg ard to the IJ’s l i kel i hood- of- t ortur e fi ndi ng w as “a pr edi ct i on that[i t ] r evi ew [s ] de novo” i s i ncorr ect u n d er Kaplun , th a td e c i s i o n d o e s n o tr e q u i r e u s t o g r a n tS u b r a t a ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. A pp. at5 n. 1. T hi s i s becaus e the B I A al s o not ed thati tw oul d fi nd the I J ’ s rul i ng t o be5

c l e a r l y e rr o n e o u s , a n d th a ti s th e s t a n d a r d r e q u i r e d b y Kaplun . T her efor e, w e nee d not r emand forr econs i der at i on i n l i ghtof Kaplun . A s i de fr om Subr at a’ s ow n t es t i m onythat“he w i l l be vi ew ed as a tr ai t orbythe I ndones i an governm entbecaus e he w as gr ant ed as y l um i n the U ni t ed St at es , ” w hi ch eve n the I J acknow l edged “ l ack[ ed] corr obor at i on” i n the r ecor d, A pp. at10, the I J ’ s fi ndi ngs w er e bas ed on “ba ckgr ound evi dence ” pr ovi ded bySubr at a, A pp. at11. Such evi dence i ncluded S t at e D epartm ent C ou ntryR epo rt s suggest i ng that I nd on esi a gen eral l yhas a tr oubl i ng hi s t oryw i th r egar d t o hum an r i ght s vi ol at i ons . H ow ever , the I J poi nt ed outthat m o re re c e n t ev id e n c e w a s “ so m e w h a t m o re re a ss u rin g ,” a s it su g g e ste d th a t In d o n e sia

“ h a s b e e n m a k in g s tr id e s to a m e lio ra te p a s t h u m a n ri g h ts v io la tio n s . . . .” A p p . a t 1 3 . T he IJ’ s det erm i nati on that Sub rat a w ou l d li kelybe d et ai ned and t ortured si m plybecau se o f h is c rim in a l d e p o rte e sta tu s h a d n o su p p o rt in th e re c o rd . N o n e o f th e d o c u m e n ts pr ovi ded bySubr at a s upport ed the fi ndi ng thathe w as per s onal l yatr i s k of det ent i on or tortu re. I n asm u ch as “ [t]he b u rde n o f p roo f is o n [S u b rata] . . . to es tablish tha t i t i s m o re lik e lyth a n n o t th a t he . . . w ould be tor tur ed i f r emoved, ” 8 C . F. R . § 208. 16( c) ( 2) (em p h asis ad d ed ), w e a g ree w ith the B IA that the IJ’s d eterm ination w as p lai n erro r. T hus , Subr at a’ s pr i nci pal ar gum entfai l s fori ns uffi ci entevi dence . F in a lly , w e h a v e n o re a so n to o v e rtu rn th e B IA ’s d e n ial o f S u b ra ta’ s m o tio n to r e o p e n . M o t i o n s t o r e o p e n a r e g r a n t e d o n l yu n d e rc o mp e l l i n g c i r c u ms t a n c e s a n d we re v ie w th e d e n ia l o f

a m o tio n to re o p e n f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . G u o v . A sh c ro ft , 386 F. 3d6

556, 561- 62 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( ci t i ng IN S v . D o h e rty , 502 U . S. 314, 323 ( 1992) ) . A l though S u b ra ta s u b m itt e d a d d iti o n a l d o c u m e n tarye v id e n c e re f lec tin g In d o n e sia ’s h u m a n rig h ts abu ses, the B IA corr ect l yfou nd that s uch evidence w as “cum ulat i ve to [S ub rat a’s ] or i gi nal cl ai m and does nots how m at er i al l ychange d ci r cumst ance s i n I ndones i a. ” A pp. a t 6 4 . In its m e rits o p in io n , the B IA a ss u m e d th a t to rtu re w a s w id e sp re a d in In d o n e sia butw as notper s uaded thatSubr at a hi m s el f fa ced de t ent i on ort ortur e. T he evi dence S u b ra ta s u b m itte d in s u p p o rto f h is m o tio n to re o p e n d o e s n o t u n d e rm in e th a t r e a s o n in g .

III . F or the ab ov e-s t at ed reasons, w e w i l l den yrevi ew of the B IA ’s orders .