2006 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
11-6-2006 

# T an v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-3995

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" T a n v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 244. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/244NOT 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. 05- 3995
L I L I NA T AN, E KO B UDI YANT O T ANAT O, Pet i t i oner v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES 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 95- 838- 171)
Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember26, 2006 B efor e: R E N D E L L , C H A G A R E S, and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: N ovember6, 2006 )

OP I NI ON
RO TH , C i r cui tJ udge: L il ina T an an d h er hu sb an d , E k o T an ata, p eti ti o n fo r rev iew o f th e o rde r of the B o ardH u sb a n d -p e tit io n e r, E k a T a n a ta, w a s c o n sid e re d f o r a sy lu m a s a d e riv a tiv e o f h is 1 w i fe’ s appl i cat i on, and, l i ke hi s w i fe, w as al s o cons i der ed forvol unt arydepartur e. 2 of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s ( B IA ) a f f ir m i ng , w i t ho ut opi nion, t he Im m i grat i on Judg e’s (I J) deni al of thei rappl i cat i on foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , an d p rot ect i on undert he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( C A T )
. W e w i l l denyt he pet i t i on. T an, a nati ve an d cit i zen o f S urabay a, Indo n e sia , as w el l as an et hn i c C hinese C athol i c, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es on or about Sept ember 6, 2001 as a noni m m i gr antvi s i t or forpl eas ur e. O n O ct ober24, 2002, t he I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce i s s ued Tan a N ot i ce t o A ppear , char gi ng t hat s he w as s ubj ect t o r emoval underSect i on 237( a) ( 1) ( B ) of th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A c t, 8 U .S .C
. § 1 2 2 7 (a )(1 )(B ), in th a t sh e w a s a d m itt e d in to t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s a s a n o n i mmi g r a n t u n d e r 8 U. S
. C. § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 1 5 ) a n d r e ma i n e d f o ra t i me l onger t han perm i t t ed. T an and her hus band appea r ed befor e t he I J on M ar ch 16, 2 0 04, 1
c o n c e d i n g r e mo v a b i l i t y a n d s e e k i n g r e l i e f f r o m r e mo v a l b y f

i l i n g a p p l i c a t i o n s f

o ra s y l u m,
w ith h o lding o f re m o v al, an d p rotec ti o n u n d er C A T , o r, in the alt ern ati v e, vo lun tary d e p a rt u re . I n s uppor tof her appl i cat i on foras y l um , T an fi l ed a s w or n s t at ementdes cr i bi ng her exp eri ences i n Indo nesi a. A ccordi ng t o h er s t at em ent, as w el l as h er t est i m on ybefo re the IJ, T an i ndi cat ed thats he and he rfami l yw er e the s ubj ectof r i di cul e, har as s m ent , and phy s i cal at t acks byt he nat i ve I ndones i an peopl e due t o t hei rC hi nese d esc en t. I n par t i cul ar , T an all eg ed that sh e a n d h er h u sb an d , in their o ff ici al lea d ersh ip p o sit ion s in their vil lage , w ereO n a p p e a l, T a n h a s n o t ra ise d a n ya rg u m e n t w ith re sp e c t to th e d e n ial o f h e r c laim 2 seeki ng prot ect i on un der C A T
. A bsent ext raor dinar yci rcum st ances, an ap pell ant m ust pr es entan ar gum enti n s uppor tof ea ch i s s ue r ai s ed on appe al ors uch i s s ues ar e dee m ed w ai ved. L i e v. A s hcr oft , 396 F. 3d 530, 532 ( 3d C i r . 2005)
. A s s uch, w e dee m herappea l o f th e d e n ia l o f

p ro te c tio n u n d e r C A T w a iv e d
. 3 bl amed fort he pr obl ems expe r i ence d by t he nat i ve I ndones i ans . A ddi t i onal l y , T an di s cus s ed th e rio t th a t e ru p ted a t th e C a th o lic sc h o o l a tten d e d b y h e r ch ild re n , the f ire th a t w a s s e t to fi ft een c hur ches i n Sur abay a, and the des t ruct i on of the C hi nes e bank atw hi ch herhus band
w or ked. O n a per s onal l evel , T an expl ai ned that s he w as r obbed atkni fe- poi ntbyt w o nat i ve I ndones i ans and thatheraunt ’ s fami l y w as ki l l ed i n a fi r e s et t o t hei r hom e. I n oper at i ng her
r es t aur anti n Sur abay a, T an al l eged thats he obt ai ned her l i cens e onl yw i t h t he as s i s t ance of hernat i ve I ndones i an fr i end. E ven then, s he w as fo rced t o paya hi gherr entt han
s ur r oundi ng bus i nes s es and w hen pol i ce offi cer s at e atherr es t aur ant , t heyr efus ed t o payfor t heirm eal s. O n M ar ch 16, 2004, t he I J deni ed Tan’ s appl i cat i on foras y l um , w it h h o l di ng of
re m o v a l, an d p ro tec tio n u n d e r C A T , a n d o rd e re d th a t b o th T a n a n d h e r h u sb a n d v o lu n tar ily d ep art the U n it ed S tat es. O n Ju ly 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 , the B IA af firm ed , w ith o u t o p in io n , th e IJ’s deci s i on. A t i m el ypet i t i on forr evi ew fol l ow ed, i n w hi ch the pet i t i oners eeks r el i ef f r om t he d e n ial o f h e r a p p lica tio n f

o r a sy lu m a n d w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l. 2 W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o rev iew fi nal or der s of the B I A under§ 242( a) of the I mmi g r a t i o n a n d Na t i o n a l i t yAc t , 8 U. S
. C. § 1 2 5 2 ( 2 0 0 5 )
. W h e r e , a s h e r e , t h e BI A a f f i r ms t he I J ’ s deci s i on w i t houtopi ni on, w e r evi ew t he I J ’ s deci s i on as t he fin al agenc y4

d eterm ination
. K o n an v . A tt o rne yG en era l, 4 3 2 F
. 3 d 4 9 7 , 5 0 0 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ). Pur s uantt o 8 U
. S. C
. § 1158( b) , t he A t t or neyG ener al m aygr antas y l um t o an al i en
w h o d e m o n stra tes th a t s h e is a re f u g e e , w h ich is d e f

in e d a s a “ p e rso n u n a b le o r u n w ill in g to return t o the cou ntryof thatperson’s nat i on ality o r h abitual r esi den ce bec ause of past per s ecut i on orbeca us e of a w el l
- founded fea r of futur e per s ecut i on on acc ountof hi s r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a par t i cul ar s oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on. ” G ao v. A shcroft , 29 9 F
. 3d 26 6, 27 1-72 (3d C i r. 20 02 ). T o be el i gibl e for asy l um on t he b asi s of pa st p e rse c u tio n , a n a lien m u st e sta b lish th e f o llo w in g : “( 1 ) a n in c id e n t, or in c id e n ts, th a t rise to t he level of persecut i on ; (2) t hat i s ‘ on accou nt of’ on e of the st atutor i l yprot ect ed g round s; and ( 3) i s c o mmi t t e d b y t h e g o v e r n me n t o r f o r c e s t h e g o v e r n me n t i s e i t h e r ‘ u n a bl e or
u n w il li n g ’ t o co n tr o l. ” Id
. at 27 2 (q u o tin g N av as v . IN S , 2 1 7 F
. 3 d 6 4 6 , 6 5 5 -56 (9th C ir
. 2 0 0 0 )). L ikew ise, to b e e li g ible fo r asy lum b ase d o n a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture p e rse c u tio n , a n a li e n m u st e sta b lish b o th th a t h e r f e a r is g e n u in e a n d th a t “a re a so n a b le per s on i n herci r cumst ance s w oul d fea rper s ecut i on i f r etur ned t o hernat i ve countr y . ” I d. at 272. W hethert he al i en has dem ons t r at ed ei t her pas tper s ecut i on ora w el l
- founded f earof f u tu re p e rse c u tio n is re v iew e d u n d e r th e su b sta n tial e v id e n c e sta n d a rd , w h ich g ra n ts sig n if ica n t d e f e re n c e to th e IJ’ s d e ter m in a tio n s. Id
. A s su c h , th e IJ’ s fa c tu a l f in d in g s w ill b e u p h e ld w h e n th e ya re g ro u n d e d in e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd a n d su p p o rte d b ysp e c if ic
r eas oni ng. A bdul r ahman v. A s hcr oft , 330 F. 3d 587, 597 ( 3d C i r . 2003)
. L i kew i s e, r ever s al5

of s uch fi ndi ngs i s perm i t t ed onl y w hen t he r ecor d evi dence “w oul d ‘co m p el’ a re a so n a b le fac t fi ndert o m ake a contr arydet erm i nat i on. ” I d. I n t hi s i ns t ance , s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s t he I J ’ s det erm i nat i on t hatT an fa i l ed to d e m o n stra te p a st p e rse c u tio n o r a w e ll-fo u n d e d f e a r o f f u tu re p e rs e c u ti o n if

re tu rn e d to I ndones i a. O n appea l , T an poi nt s t o a number of i nci dent s t hat , acc or di ng t o her , cons t i tut ed pas tper s ecut i on and gener at ed a fea r of futur e per s ecut i on, al l of w hi ch w er e i ncl uded i n her af fid av itan d test ifi ed to at the h ea ri n g b ef o re the IJ on M arc h 1 6 , 2 0 0 4
. In de n y ing T an ’s pet i t i on for as y l um , t he I J cons i der ed thes e i nci dent s and det erm i ned thatt heydi d notamount t o pas tper s ecut i on ora w el l
- founded fea rof futur e per s ecut i on. For i ns t ance , t he I J not ed th a t m a n yo f

th e in c id e n ts, in c lu d in g T a n ’s te s ti m o n yre g a rd in g th e d isc rim in a to ryw a yin
w hi ch bus i nes s es ar e l i cens ed i n Sur abay a, t he burni ng of fi ft een chur ches , and t he fi r e s et t o h e ra u n t ’ s h o m e , w e r e n o t s u b s t a n t i a t e d w i t h a n y d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e . I n t h e s a m e w a y, the IJ c o n clud ed that m an y o f the o ther inc iden ts r ef ere n ce d b yT an co u ld b e v iew ed as m ere act s of l aw l es s nes s r athert han ac t s of pe r s ecut i on. Fori ns t ance , anyevi dence of nat i ve In d o n e sia n h o stilityto w a rd s T a n a n d h e r h u sb a n d c o u ld e a sily a rise f ro m th e ir o f

f icia l ro le
as l eade r s i n t he vi l l age. U lti m a tely , this is n o t a c a se o f f a ilu re to c o n sid e r e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd . In d e e d , in h er b ri ef , T an d o es n o t po int t o an yev iden ce that the IJ f ail ed to co n side r. R athe r, the IJ
c o n c lu d e d th a t th e e v id e n c e p re se n ted to h im d id n o t am o u n t to p a st p e rse c u tio n o r a w e llfounded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on i f T an r etur ned t o I ndones i a. B eca us e s uch conc l us i onsB eca us e Tan has notes t abl i s hed a w el l
- founded f earof per s ecut i on foras y l um 3 purpos es , s he al s o has notm ett he more r i gor ous s t andar d of el i gi bi l i t yforw i t hhol di ng of rem o v al. S ee Z u b ed a v . A sh cro ft, 3 3 3 F
. 3 d 4 6 3 , 4 6 9 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 3 ). 6 w ere based on t he ev i den ce i n the r ecord an d w ere s up po rt ed b yspeci fi c reas on i ng , t heym ust be uphel d undert he s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d of r evi ew . W e ar e notcompel l ed t o m ake 3
a f i n d i n g c o n t r a r yt o t h a to f t h e I J
. T h e r e f

o r e , we wi l l d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.