2010 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 6-4-2010 

# K ho e 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 . 08-3916

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_2010

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 2010 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 " K hoe v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1198. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1198I M G - 218 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. 08- 3916

___________ TOM M Y SETI AW AN KH OE, 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 derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 96- 204- 488) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e R os al i nd K . M al l oy

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay26, 2010 B efore: R E N D E L L , F ISH E R and G A R T H , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: J une 4, 2010 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i onerT om m ySet i aw an K hoe, a nat i ve and e t hni c C hi nes e C hr i s t i an ci t i zen of Indon esi a, fi l ed a ti m el ypeti t i on for r eview from the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s’2

( “B I A ”) fi nal or derof r emoval . Forthe fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on for r e v i e w. K h o e e n ter e d th e U n ited S tate s in Ju n e 1 9 9 8 a s a v isito r a u th o riz e d to re m a in in the countryfors i x m ont hs . I n 2003, the G overnm entpl ace d hi m i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1227( a) ( 1) ( B ) , forover s t ay i ng hi s vi s a. K hoe fi l ed appl i cat i ons fo r asy lum , w ith h o lding o f re m o v al, an d p rotec ti o n u n d er the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re (“C A T ”), cl aim ing that h e w as p erse cu ted in the p ast an d that h e h ad a f ea r of fu ture per s ecut i on i n I ndones i a on the bas i s of hi s C hi nes e ethni ci t yand C hr i s t i an r el i gi on. K hoe’ s t es t i m onyand per s onal s t at ementdes cr i bed gene r al l ythathe w as bul l i ed and r i di cul ed as a chi l d byM us l i m chi l dr en ats chool and i n hi s comm uni t y . I n 1990, w hen he w as t w enty - one y ear s ol d, unknow n t eena ge ethni c I ndones i ans s t opped hi m on h is m o to rc y c le o n h is w a yh o m e f ro m w o rk , p u n c h e d h im se v e ra l ti m e s, a n d to o k h is m oney , m ot or cy cl e, and w at ch. ( A . R . at128- 29. ) K hoe di d notneed medi cal tr eatm ent and he di d notr eportt he i nci dentt o t he pol i ce be caus e he be l i eved thattheyw oul d do nothi ng unl es s t heyw er e pai d. ( I d. ) I n J une 1996, a gr oup of I ndones i ans appr oache d K hoe and hi s gi r l fr i end, w ho w er e s t opped i n hi s caratan i nt er s ect i on. ( A . R . at130; Pet ’ rA . at37. ) W hen K hoe r efus ed thei rdemand form oneyand j ew el r y , theypunched hi m and att empt ed t o harm hi s gi r l fr i end. ( I d. ) H e foughtthe att acke r s w i t h a ca rj ack u n til th e a s s a ila n ts f

le d . (I d . a t 1 3 1 .) A g a in , h e d id n o t r e p o rt th e in c id e n t to th e p o lic e . ( I d. ) K hoe and hi s fami l ys uffe r ed i n t he r i ot s thatoccurr ed i n I ndones i a i n M ay19983

( A . R . at127; Pet ’ rA . at37) , w hen nat i ve I ndones i ans bur gl ar i zed the fa m i l yhom e, t ook pr oper ty , and s ett he hous e af i r e. ( Pet ’ rA . at37. ) T he pl ace w her e K hoe w or ked w as al s o bur ntt o t he gr ound. ( I d. ) A l t hough he ac know l edged thati ti s “s afe [i n I ndones i a] atthi s t i m e, ” he w as s t i l l anxi ous t hatthi ngs coul d change and ther efor e, i tw as not

“ 1 0 0 % s a f

e to liv e th e re .” (A .R . a t 1 3 3 .) O n J une 14, 2006, fol l ow i ng a hea r i ng, the I J deni ed K hoe’ s appl i cat i ons forr el i ef a n d o rd e re d h im re m o v e d . T h e IJ d e ter m in e d th a t th e a sy lu m a p p lica tio n w a s s tatu to rily barr ed bec aus e i tw as fi l ed abouts i x y ear s aft erhe arr i ved i n t he countr y . A s for w i thhol di ng of r emoval , t he I J concl uded thatK hoe had notm ethi s bur den of s how i ng pas tper s ecut i on ort he cl earpr obabi l i t yof futur e per s ecut i on. Speci fi cal l y , the I J found thatthe 1990 r obberyand the 1996 att empt ed r obberyw er e i s ol at ed cr i m es comm i t t ed by u n k n o w n n a tiv e In d o n e sia n a ss a ilan ts w h o m a yh a v e tar g e ted K h o e b e c a u se o f h is w eal th. A s fort he harm K hoe and hi s fami l ys uffe r ed dur i ng the M ay1998 r i ot s , ci t i ng L i e v. A s hcr oft , 396 F. 3d 530 ( 3d C i r . 2005) , the I J concl uded thatthe I ndones i an governm entdi d notcondone a pat t ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on of ethni c C hi nes e. T he I J al s o det erm i ned thatK hoe fa i l ed t o pr ove a pa t t ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on of C hi nes e C hr i s t i ans byt he I ndones i an governm ent . T he I J al s o found thatK hoe di d not h av e a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture p erse cu ti o n . A cc o rdin g ly , the IJ d en ied K h o e’s ap p li ca ti o n fo r w ith h o lding o f re m o v al an d fo r C A T reli ef. O n A u g u st 27 , 2 0 0 8 , the B IAForw i t hhol di ng of r emoval purpos es , the al i en bea r s the bur den of pr ovi ng that 1 h e w ill m o re lik e ly th a n n o t b e s u b je c t to p e rs e c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f a p ro te c te d g ro u n d . See I . N . S. v. St evi c, 467 U . S. 407, 429- 30 ( 1984) ; Senathi r aj ah v. I N S, 157 F. 3d 210, 215 ( 3d C i r . 1998) . I f the al i en ca n demonstr at e pas tper s ecut i on, thatfi ndi ng w i l l r ai s e a reb u tt ab le pre su m p ti o n that the a li en ’s “li fe o r free d o m w o u ld b e thre aten ed in the fu ture

. . . . ” 8 C . F . R . § 1 2 0 8 . 1 6 (b)(1 )(i ). 4 a d o p ted a n d a f

f irm e d th e IJ’ s d e c isio n a n d d ism iss e d th e a p p e a l. K h o e f iled a tim e ly p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w f i n a l o r d e r s o f

th e BI A u n d e r8 U. S . C. § 1252( a) ( 1) . W her e, as her e, t he B I A expr es s l yadopt s the I J ’ s deci s i on and r eas oni ng pur s uantt o M att erof B urbano, 20 I . & N . D ec. 872, 874 ( B I A 1994) , w e r evi ew the d e c isio n s o f

b o th th e IJ a n d th e B IA to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e B IA ’s d e c isio n to d e f e r to th e IJ w a s a p p ro p ri a te . S h e h u v . A tto rn e yG e n ., 4 8 2 F .3 d 6 5 2 , 6 5 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). W e re v iew th e f

a c tu a l f in d in g s o f

th e IJ f o r su b sta n tial e v id e n c e . A b d u lra h m a n v . A sh c ro f t, 330 F. 3d 587, 597 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . W e w i l l uphol d t he fi ndi ngs i f theyar e “s uppor t ed by r eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr obat i ve evi dence on t he r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e. ” IN S v . E lias -Z a c a ria s, 5 0 2 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 (1 9 9 2 ). T h e a g e n c y ’s d e c isio n “ m u st b e u p h e ld unl es s t he evi dence notonl ys uppor t s a contr aryconcl us i on, butcompel s i t . ” A bdi l l e v. A sh cro ft, 2 4 2 F . 3 d 4 7 7 , 4 8 3 -84 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ); see also 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(4 )(B ). K h o e c h a llen g e s o n lyth e IJ’ s d e n ial o f w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l b a se d o n h is fai l ure t o est abli sh pastpersecut i on . T o est abli sh “pastpersecut i on , ” t he ali en m ust 1 s how : ( 1) an i nci dent , ori nci dent s , thatcons t i tut ed per s ecut i on; ( 2) thatoccurr ed onK hoe’ s as y l um s t at ements t at es thatthe pl ace w her e he w or ked w as burned t o the 2 g ro u n d . T h e IJ a p p a re n tlyto o k K h o e ’s p e rso n a l sta tem e n t to m e a n th a t th e f a m ily b u s i n e s s wa s d e s t r o y e d . ( A. R. a t1 4 0 ) ( n o t i n g th a t“ t h e r e s p o n d e n t ’ s f a mi l yh o me bu si ness w as destroy ed in the ‘98 d uri ng the ri ots . A nd , he lefttw o m on t hs aft er the las t i nci dent . ”) 5 acc ountof one of

t he s t atut or i l y - pr ot ect ed gr ounds ; and w hi ch ( 3) w er e comm i t t ed byt he governm entorfor ces t he governm enti s ei therunabl e orunw i l l i ng t o contr ol . B er i s haj v. A s hcr oft , 378 F. 3d 314, 323 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . Per s ecut i on, narr ow l ydefi ned, i ncl udes “thr eat s t o l i fe, confi nement , t or tur e, and ec onom i c r es t r i ct i ons s o s ever e thatthey c o n s titu te a th re a t to lif e o r f re e d o m .” F a tin v . I.N .S ., 1 2 F .3 d 1 2 3 3 , 1 2 4 0 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ).

“ [ P ]e rse c u tio n d o e s n o t en c o m p a ss a ll tre a tm e n t th a t o u r so c ietyre g a rd s a s u n f a ir, u n ju st, oreven unl aw ful oruncons t i tut i onal . ” I d. at1240. K h o e a rg u e s th a t th e IJ f a iled to f u llyc o n sid e r th a t th e d e stru c tio n o f th e f a m ily h o m e a n d b u s i n e s s i n t h e Ma y1 9 9 8 r i o t s a m o u n t e d t o e c o n o m i c p e r s e c u t i o n . We di s agr ee. H er e, t he I J cr edi t ed K hoe’ s t es t i m onyas bei ng cons i s t entw i t h hi s per s onal s t at ement , fi ndi ng t hatethni c C hi nes e bus i nes s es w er e t ar get ed dur i ng the 1998 r i ot s and K hoe’ s fami l yhom e and bus i nes s w er e des t r oy ed i n t he M ay1998 r i ot s . C i t i ng our 2 deci s i on i n L i e v. A s hcr oft , 396 F. 3d 530 ( 3d C i r . 2005) , the I J det erm i ned thatK hoe f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h g o v e r n me n ta c t i o n o ra c q u i e s c e n c e i n th e M a y1 9 9 8 r i o t s . I n L i e , we not ed thatvi ol ence agai ns tC hi nes e C hr i s t i ans dur i ng r i ot s thatpl agued I ndones i a i n 1998 “s eems t o have be en pr i m ar i l yw r oughtbyfel l ow ci t i zens and notthe r es ul tof governm ent al act i on oracqui es cenc e. ” I d. at537. G i ven the l ack of evi dence s how i ngK h o e ’s re lia n c e o n O u d a v . I.N .S ., 3 2 4 F .3 d 4 4 5 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) i s m is p la c e d . 3 C i t i ng O ud a, K ho e argues t hat the IJ’ s fi nd i ng s ( t he ri ots t arget ed ethni c C hinese C h ri sti an s an d K h o e’s f am il yh o m e a n d b u sine ss w ere d estroy ed in the ri o ts) , w ere s uffi ci entt o s uppor ta fi ndi ng of pas tper s ecut i on. H avi ng r evi ew ed O uda, w e ca nnot fi nd anym at er i al s i m i l ar i t ybetw een thatcas e and thi s one. N ot abl y , ther e i s no s uch evi dence of governm enti nvol vementher e. See Li e, 396 F. 3d at537. 6 the I ndones i an governm ent ’ s act i on oracqui es cenc e i n K hoe’ s cas e, w e ar e not c o m p e lled to c o n c lu d e th a t th e v io len c e v isited o n h is f a m ilyd u rin g th e M a y1 9 9 8 rio ts cons t i tut ed per s ecut i on, economi c orot herw i s e. 3 K hoe cl ai m s t hat , t aken t ogether , the r obbery , at t empt ed r obbery , and the d e c im a tio n o f

h is f a m ily ’s h o m e a n d b u sin e ss d u rin g th e M a y1 9 9 8 rio t, am o u n t to per s ecut i on s uffi ci entforw i t hhol di ng of r emoval purpos es . W e di s agr ee. A l t hough t he h a rm d e sc rib e d in th e ro b b e rya n d a ttem p ted ro b b e ryis tro u b lin g , itd o e s n o t co n stitu te p ast p erse cu ti o n . S ee L ie, 3 9 6 F . 3 d at 53 6 (ho lding that an ethn ic C h ines e In d o n esian ’s acc ountof tw o i s ol at ed cr i m i nal act s byunknow n as s ai l ant s , w hi ch r es ul t ed onl yi n t he th e f t o f so m e p e rso n a l p ro p e rtya n d a m in o r in ju ry , w a s n o t su f

f icie n tlyse v e re to cons t i tut e per s ecut i on) ; K onan v. A t t orneyG en. , 432 F. 3d 497, 506 ( 3d C i r . 2005) (g e n e ra lize d law les sn e ss a n d v io len c e b e tw e e n d iv e rse p o p u latio n s is g e n e ra lly i ns uffi ci entt o s how pas tper s ecut i on) . I n K hoe’ s cas e, the r obberyi nci dent s , perpetr at ed byunknow n ci vi l i ans , w er e abouts i x y ear s apart . M or eover , ther e i s no evi dence thatt he crim es w ere ethn icall yo r reli g iou slym o ti v ated , an d n eith er c ri m e re su lt ed in injury re q u irin g m e d ica l trea tm e n t. A s w e h a v e a lre a d yd isc u ss e d , the h a rm K h o e su f f e re d in7

th e M a y1 9 9 8 r i o t s d i d n o ta mo u n tt o p e r s e c u t i o n f o ri mm i g r a t i o n p u rp o s e s . T h u s , we cannots ayt hatt he evi dence pr es ent ed, cons i der ed i n t he aggr egat e, w as s o compel l i ng thatno r eas onabl e fa ct fi ndercoul d fai l t o fi nd the r equi s i t e per s ecut i on. F o rt h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.