-1- 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. 09- 1663

_____________ E M I L S I L VAN DA M S YI K, Pet i t i oner

v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL, 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 ( B . I . A . N os . A 98- 413- 387, A 098- 413- 388 and A 098- 413- 389) S u b m itted U n d er T h ir d C ir cu itL . A . R . 3 4 . 1 (a),

J ul y12, 2010 B efore: F U E N T E S , A L D ISE R T , and R O T H , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: Sept ember10, 2010) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge: E m il S y lv a n D a m sy ik , a n a tiv e a n d c iti z e n o f In d o n e sia , ap p lied f

o r a sy lu m in 2004 on the bas i s of pas tper s ecut i on bythe mi l i t arydue t o hi s pol i t i cal opi ni ons . T heT h is c o u rt h a s ju risd ictio n to re v iew th e B IA ’s f in a l o rd e rs o f

re m o v a l p u rsu a n t to 1 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a). W e d e riv e th e se f

a c ts f ro m th e IJ’ s o p in io n , the sta tem e n t o f D a m sy ik a ttac h e d to 2 h is A p p lic a tio n f

o r A s y lu m a n d W ith h o ld in g o f R e m o v a l, a n d h is te s tim o n yb e f o re th e IJ . A s n o te d , th e IJ f

o u n d D a m s y ik “ e x tr e m e ly cr e d ib le ” a n d “ h ig h ly co n s is te n t.” -2- i m m i gr at i on j udge ( “I J ”) gr ant ed as y l um , des cr i bi ng the ca s e as a “c l os e ca l l , ” but deemi ng D amsy i k’ s t es t i m ony“extr emel ycr edi bl e” a nd “hi ghl ycons i s t ent . ” ( A pp. 16, 1 7 ). T h e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ) re v e rse d th is d e ter m in a tio n . D a m sy ik f iled a tim e lyp e tit io n f

o r re v iew . W e w ill g ra n t th e p e tit io n a n d re m a n d f o r th e B IA to cons i derthe evi dence i n the aggr egat e i n det erm i ni ng w hetherpas tper s ecut i on occurr ed a n d t o a p p l yth e p r o p e rs t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w. 1 I. B ec au se w e w ri te prim aril yfo r th e p arti es, w e se t fo rth o n lythe f ac ts an d h ist o ry thatar e r el evantt o ourconcl us i on. I n M ay2002, w hi l e s t i l l l i vi ng i n I ndones i a, 2 D am sy ik sa w a tea ch er a t his son ’s sch o o l abu sing stud en ts. H e f o u g h t th e tea ch er, bl oody i ng the t eac her ’ s nos e. W eeks l at er , tw o m en as ked t o s peak w i th D amsy i k about the i nci dent . H e fol l ow ed them t o a s occe rfi el d behi nd nearbym i l i t arybarr acks . Four m en w ear i ng A r m yuni form s j oi ned them. O ne man expl ai ned thathe w as the y ounger b ro th e r o f

th e tea c h e r w ith w h o m D a m sy ik h a d f o u g h t. T h e m e n b e a t D a m sy ik in to uncons ci ous nes s . W hen he a w oke the men w er e gone. D amsy i k w as bl eedi ng, hi s knee ache d and hi s vi s i on w as bl urry . H e w entt o the hos pi t al and r eport ed the cr i m e t o the p o lice . T h e p o lice d id n o t ac t.-3-

F ru s tr a t e d wi th th e l a c k o f r e s p o n s e , i n J u l y2 0 0 2 Da ms y i k wr o t e l e t t e r s t o two nat i onal new s paper s des cr i bi ng the s ol di er s ’ conduct . O ne conf i r m ed r ece i ptand pr om i s ed t o pr i nti t , butnei therpaperdi d s o. T hats ame m onth tw o di ffe r entm en a p p r o a c h e d Da ms y i k . On e h e l d a g u n t o h i s h e a d a n d t o l d h i m t o d r i v e t o a g ym o n a r my pr opertynearthe s ame m i l i t arybarr acks . T her e, a gr oup of s ol di er s beathi m unt i l he pas s ed out . A gai n, D amsy i k w oke al one. T hi s t i m e, he s oughtpr i vat e tr eatm entr ather than goi ng t o the hos pi t al . I ns t ead of fi l i ng a pol i ce r eport , he s poke pr i vat el yw i th a s in g le o f f ic e r. D a m sy ik w ro te a se c o n d lette r a n d m a iled it t o th e sa m e n e w sp a p e rs. H e a g a in r ece i ved a pr om i s e thati tw oul d be publ i s hed. I tw as not . I n A ugus t , D amsy i k began re c e iv e d th re a ten in g p h o n e c a lls. “It w o u ld b e b e tter f o r u s to sa c rif

ice o n e p e rso n , tha n to s a c r i f i c e o u rg o o d n a me , ” o n e c a l l e rs a i d . ( Ap p . a t3 9 . ) An o th e rc a l l e rwa rn e d h i m, “D on’ tdo anythi ng s tupi d! W e the A r m ed For ces w i l l notacc epti tthaty ou s ayanythi ng i n fr ontof the peopl e. ” ( I d. ) Sever al t i m es w hi l e D amsy i k w as atw ork, m en on m ot or cy cl es came t o hi s hous e and thr eat ened hi m and hi s fami l y . A m es s age w as l eft th a t “ tw ic e is o n ly w a rn in g s ” a n d th e re w o u ld b e n o m o re w a rn in g s . (I d . a t 9 4 -9 5 .) T hats ame m onth, D amsy i k and hi s w i fe de ci ded t o l eave I ndones i a forthe U ni t ed St at es . T heys ol d thei rcar , obt ai ned tr avel vi s as , and putthei rhous e on the mar ket . For n i n e mo n th s , th e yr e c e i v e d n o o f f e r s o n th e h o u s e . Da ms y i k k e p ta wa yf r o m h i s h o me fi ftyper centof the t i m e, oft en s t ay i ng athi s aunt ’ s hous e. D amsy i k and hi s w i fe a cce pt ed-4-

th e f ir s t o f f e r t h e yre c e iv e d f

o r t h e h o u s e a n d le f

t I n d o n e s ia a t th e e n d o f M a y2 0 0 3 . D amsy i k arr i ved i n the U ni t ed St at es on a vi s i t or s ’ vi s a and s ubs equent l yappl i ed for a s y lu m . T he I J , r el y i ng on the tw o beat i ngs as evi dence of pas tper s ecut i on, gr ant ed D amsy i k and hi s w i fe a nd s on as y l um . T he I J found that“the onl yr eas onabl e i nfer ence ” w as that the m i l i t aryact ed ag ai nstD am sy i k in r espon se t o h i s “expressi on of an adv ers e opi ni on agai ns t[the mi l i t ary ] ” and thatthi s cr i t i ci s m cons t i tut ed an “ expr es s i on of a pol i t i cal opi ni on. ” ( I d. at21. ) T he I J furtherfound thatD amsy i k had pr oven a re a so n a b le p o ss ib ili tyo f f u tu re p e rse c u tio n if

h e re tu rn e d to In d o n e sia . T h e IJ f a iled to r eac h D amsy i k’ s cl ai m s forw i thhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A g ains t T o rtu re. T h e B IA su b seq u en tl yh eld th at th e IJ e rred in f ind ing the b ea ti n g s w ere on acc ountof pol i t i cal opi ni on, i ns t ead de emi ng them per s onal i n natur e. I tfound no evi dence thatD amsy i k’ s att acke r s knew he had c ont act ed the new s paper s , and conc l uded that r egardl ess, the b eat i ng s w ere due to D am sy i k’s att em pts t o reporti nd i vidual s’ w r ongdoi ng r atherthan anyoppos i t i on t o the mi l i t aryorgovernm ent . Focus i ng on the s econd be at i ng, the B I A deci ded thateven i f i tw as on acc ountof an i m put ed pol i t i cal opi ni on, i tdi d notcons t i tut e “pa s tper s ecut i on. ” The B I A al s o found thatther e w as not su ff ici en t evid en ce to es tablish the ex ist en ce o f a “w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on. ” D amsy i k fi l ed a t i m el yappea l , ar gui ng chi efl ythatthe B I A appl i ed an in c o rr e c t s ta n d a rd o f

re v ie w to th e IJ ’s g ra n t o f a s y lu m .-5- II. W e r e v i e w th e B I A ’ s l e g a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n s d e n o v o . Filja v. Gonzales, 447 F .3d 241, 2 5 1 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) . T h is d e n o v o re v iew is s u b jec t to th e d e f

e re n tial p rin c ip les se t f

o rth in C h e v ro n , U .S .A ., In c . v . N a tu ra l R e s o u rc e s D e f e n s e C o u n c il, I n c ., 4 6 7 U .S . 8 3 7 (1 9 8 4 ). K ap lun v . A tt ’yG en . , 6 0 2 F . 3 d 2 6 0 , 2 6 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 1 0 ). W e w il l up h o ld the B IA ’s fac tual 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 the r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e. ” Fi l j a, 447 F. 3d at251 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . A l though thi s s t andar d i s defe r ent i al , “thatdefe r ence i s expr es s l ycondi t i oned on s uppor ti n the r ecor d. ” Toure v. A t t ’ yG en. , 443 F. 3d 310, 316 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( quot at i on m arks and cit ati o n o m itted). M o reo v er, “[t]he B IA m ayn o t i g n o re e v iden ce in the rec o rd th at fa v o rs th e p e titio n e r.” K a n g v . A tt’ yG e n ., 6 1 1 F .3 d 1 5 7 , 1 6 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ). T o be el i gi bl e foras y l um , D amsy i k m us tdemonstr at e thathe i s unabl e or unw i l l i ng t o r eturn t o I ndones i a due t o pas tper s ecut i on ora w el l - founded f earof p e rs e c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f h is p o litic a l o p in io n , n a m e ly h is c ri tic is m o f th e m ilita ry. 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) . “Per s ecut i on i ncl udes , buti s notl i m i t ed t o, thr 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 to lif e o r f re e d o m .” E s p in o s a -C o rt e z v . A tt’ yG e n ., 607 F. 3d 101, 107 ( 3d C i r . 2010) (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ). T h e IJ f o u n d th a t th e f

irst b e a tin g w a s re talia to rya n d , b yitse lf , n o t su f f icie n t to amount t o pas tper s ecut i on. H ow ever , the I J found “r eas onabl e and pe r m i s s i bl e and-6-

s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence ” the i nfer ence thatthe s econd be at i ng w as due t o the l ett er s D amsy i k s entt o the new s paper s . ( A pp. at19. ) T he I J concl uded thatthe s econd beat i ng, i n combi nat i on w i th the fi r s t , w er e s ever e enough t o es t abl i s h pas tper s ecut i on. U pon r evi ew , the B I A deemed both beat i ngs per s onal i n natur e. A l t ernat i vel y , even a ss u m in g th a t th e se c o n d b e a tin g w a s “ o n a c c o u n t o f a n im p u ted p o lit ica l o p in io n ,” it d id n o t dee m that b ea ti n g , b yit self, suf ficien t t o co n sti tute p ast p erse cu ti o n . (Id. at 4.) “Fact s det erm i ned bythe i m m i gr at i on j udge, i ncl udi ng fi ndi ngs as t o the cr edi bi l i tyof t es t i m ony , s hal l be r evi ew ed onl yt o det erm i ne w hetherthe fi ndi ngs of the i m m i gr at i on j udge ar e cl ear l yerr oneous . ” 8 C . F. R § 1003. 1( d) ( 3) ( I ) ; s ee a l s o K apl un, 6 0 2 F .3 d a t 2 6 8 . T h e lan g u a g e in th e B IA ’s o p in io n d o e s n o t su g g e st a n yd e f e re n c e to th e IJ ’s f in d in g s o f

f a c t, n o r d o e s it r e f

e re n c e o r a p p ly th is “ c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s ” s ta n d a rd . Forexampl e, the B I A w r ot e, “w e do notfi nd thatthe s econd be at i ng w as ai m ed at quel l i ng the r es pondent ’ s pol i t i cal opi ni on. ” ( A pp. at4. ) T hi s fac tual concl us i on contr adi ct s the I J ’ s fi ndi ng thatthe “onl yr eas onabl e i nfer ence ” w as “thatthe mi l i t aryw as ups etw i th [D amsy i k’ s ] expr es s i on of an a dver s e opi ni on. ” ( I d. at21. ) Si m i l ar l y , the B IA ’s op inion stat es th at th e se co n d b ea ti n g w as “ b ythe tea ch er’s b roth er,” (i d . at 4), des pi t e the I J ’ s fi ndi ng, bas ed upon D amsy i k’ s t es t i m ony , thatthe br otherw as notpr es ent dur i ng the s econd be at i ng atthe hands of the mi l i t ary( i d. at18) . R atherthan r evi ew the IJ’s fa ctua l fi n d ing s fo r clear e rror, the B IA ap p ea rs t o h av e a p p li ed a d e n o v o stan d ard th ro u g h o u t its o p in io n .T hi s s t at ementi s found i n an att achmentt o D amsy i k’ s as y l um appl i cat i on, w hi ch 3 the I J des cr i bed as “exa ct l yw hatthe r es pondentt es t i fi ed t o i n court . ” ( A pp. at17. ) T he IJ fo u n d D am sy ik “e x tr em elycre d ible. ” (Id . ) -7- T h e B IA ’s c o n c lu sio n in th e a ltern a tiv e , tha t ev e n if th e se c o n d b e a tin g w a s in r es pons e t o D amsy i k’ s “pol i t i cal opi ni on, ” i tfel l s hor tof cons t i tut i ng pas tper s ecut i on, does notcur e thi s defe ct . T he B I A r el i ed on ca s e l aw hol di ng thatcert ai n i s ol at ed vi ol ent event s di d notr i s e t o the l evel of pas tper s ecut i on. I n doi ng s o, i ti gnor ed the I J ’ s fi ndi ng that the “seco nd beati ng com bined w i th the fi rs t ” w as “severe enou gh t o m eeta past per s ecut i on thr es hol d. ” ( A pp. at19. ) G i ven thatboth the B I A and the I J found thatthe fi r s tbeat i ng w as per s onal i n natur e and noti n r es pons e t o D amsy i k’ s opi ni ons r egar di ng th e m ilita ry, w e f

in d n o e rr o r i n e x c lu d in g it f ro m th e p a s t p e rs e c u tio n a n a lysis . N onethel es s , the B I A i s r equi r ed t o cons i derr el evanti nci dent s i n the aggr egat e. T our e, 443 F. 3d at318- 19 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . I n addi t i on t o thes e tw o beat i ngs , the r ecor d i ncl uded ev iden ce reg ard ing threa tenin g p h o n e c all s to D am sy ik f rom the m il it ary , w h ich th e IJ not ed. ( A pp. at22. ) T he ca l l er s , w ho i dent i fi ed themsel ves as “the A r m ed For ces , ” made thr eat s i ncl udi ng the s t at ement : “O ne per s on i s nothi ng t o us ! I f y ou w antus t o s hoot y o u , itw ill b e a n e a syjo b !” (A p p . at 3 9 .) T h e se th re a ts s h o u ld h a v e b e e n c o n sid e re d , in 3 conj unct i on w i th the s econd be at i ng, i n m aki ng a det erm i nat i on r egar di ng w hether , i n the aggr egat e, D amsy i k exper i ence d per s ecut i on. See V oci v. G onzal es , 409 F. 3d 607, 614- 15 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( hol di ng thata s er i es of i nci dent s , w hi ch i ncl uded thr eat s , “[i ] n the ag g reg ate . . . ri se to the lev el of p erse cu ti o n as c o n tem p lat ed b ythe A ct. ” (q u o ti n g In re-8-

O - Z & I - Z , 22 I . & N . D ec. 23 ( 1998) ) ; s ee a l s o L i v. A t t ’ yG en. , 400 F. 3d 157, 169 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( hol di ng thata s er i es of har ds hi ps , “[i ] n the aggr egat e . . . cons t i tut e[d] d eli b era te i m p o sit ion o f se v ere ec o n o m ic disad v an tage w h ich c o u ld threa ten h is fam il y ’s fr eedom i f notthei rl i ves . ”) . T he B I A m aynots i m pl yi gnor e s uch evi dence . K ang, 611 F .3 d a t 1 6 4 . A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill re m a n d to th e B IA to a p p lyth e p ro p e r sta n d a rd in r evi ew i ng the I J ’ s fac tual det erm i nat i ons and t o pr oper l ycons i deri n the aggr egat e al l the e v id e n c e th a t m ig h t s u p p o rta f in d in g o f p a s t p e rs e c u tio n . T h e IJ a lso f

o u n d , in th e a ltern a tiv e , tha t D a m sy ik h a d p ro v e n a re a so n a b le p o ssibil ityo f f

u ture p erse cu ti o n if h e re turn ed to In d o n esia. D am sy ik es tablishe d , the IJ ru led , tha t “th e re is a t lea st a re a so n a b le p o ss ib ili ty. . . o f b e in g tar g e ted u p o n re tu rn to q u a lifyh im a s a m a tter o f sta tu te f o r a sy lu m .” (A p p . at 2 4 .) A lth o u g h in K a p lu n w e d e a lt s peci fi cal l yw i th a C A T cl ai m , w e hel d that“expr es s i ons of l i kel i hood” i n the cont extof “i m m i gr at i on gener al l y ” cons t i tut e fi ndi ngs of fa ctand thus s houl d be r evi ew ed “onl yfor cl earerr or . ” K apl un, 602 F. 3d at270. T he B I A pr ovi ded s cantanal y s i s of the ques t i on of w hethers uffi ci entevi dence of a “ w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on” exi s t ed. ( A pp. at 5 .) W e th e re f

o re d ire c t th e B IA , u p o n re m a n d , to c lar if yits tre a tm e n t o f

th is iss u e a n d to c o n s id e r t h e re le v a n c e o f o u r d e c is io n in K a p lu n in d o in g s o .

I I I . F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e g ra n t D a m sy ik ’s p e tit io n f o r re v iew a n d re m a n d to the B I A forfurtherpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on.