2008 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 7-8-2008 

# R iyan a 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 . 07-2129

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_2008

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 2008 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 " R iyan a v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 883. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/883NOT 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. 07- 2129 DADAN RI YANA, 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

Pet i t i on forR evi ew of a Fi nal O r derof T h e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A Fi l e N o. A 96- 203- 824)

S u b mi tt e d P u r s u a n tt o T h i r d Ci r c u i tL AR 34. 1( a)

M ay13, 2008 B efor e: M cK E E and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges , and PA D O V A , *

Seni orD i s t r i ctJ udge. ( Fi l ed: J ul y8, 2008)

____ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_____________ * T h e H o n o rab le Jo h n R . P ad o v a, S en ior U n it ed S tat es D istri ct Ju d g e f o r th e E astern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.-2-

P A D O V A , Seni orU

ni t ed Stat es D is tr i ct

Judge . Pet i t i oner , D adan Ri y ana, s eeks r evi ew of the dec i s i on of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) di s m i s s i ng hi s appl i cat i ons foras y l um and w i t hhol di ng of re m o v a l. F o r t h e f

o llo w in g re a s o n s , th e P e titio n w ill b e d e n ie d . I. R i y ana i s an adul t , m al e ci t i zen of I ndones i a. H e ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es on or a b o u t Ju n e 2 8 , 2 0 0 1 , o n a n o n -im m ig ra n t B 1 b u sin e ss v isito r’s v isa , w ith p e rm iss io n to r emai n unt i l Sept ember27, 2001. O n Sept ember19, 2001, he r eques t ed an e xt ens i on, w hi ch w as gr ant ed on M ar ch 14, 2002, and gave hi m author i zat i on t o r emai n i n t he U ni t ed St at es unt i l M ar ch 27, 2002. R i y ana s oughta s econd e xt ens i on on hi s vi s a, but thatr eques tw as deni ed on Sept ember18, 2002. O n O ct ober30, 2003, the I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce ( now t he D epart m entof H om el and Secur i t y[“D H S”] ) char ged R i y ana w i t h vi ol at i ng t he I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i t yA ct( “I N A ”) § 237( a) ( 1) ( B ) , and o rde red h im to ap p ea r be fo re a n im m igrati o n jud g e (“ IJ”). R i y ana i ni t i al l yappea r ed bef or e an I J on O ct ober28, 2004, and admi t t ed t o t he c h a rg e s a lleg e d b yD H S . R iy a n a a d v ise d th e IJ a t th is p ro c e e d in g th a t h e in ten d e d to s ubm i tappl i cat i ons foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , pr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on A gainstT orture ( “C A T ”), and , i n the al t ernat i ve, vo l un t arydep arture. R i y ana f i l ed these appl i cat i ons on D ece m ber23, 2004. A ta hea r i ng the s ame day , the I J i ns t ruct ed R i y ana t o s ubm i tanyaddi t i onal evi dence and br i efi ng r egar di ng hi s qual i fi cat i ons foran-3-

exce pt i on t o t he one- y eardeadl i ne fr om the dat e of a r r i val i n t he U ni t ed St at es forthe f ilin g o f a s y lu m a p p lic a tio n s . A hear i ng on t he mer i t s of R i y ana’ s appl i cat i ons w as hel d on D ece m ber8, 2005, befor e a di ffe r entI J . A tt hi s hear i ng, the I J admi t t ed the fol l ow i ng exhi bi t s : ( 1) the not i ce t o appea r ; ( 2) t he as y l um appl i cat i on; ( 3) R i y ana’ s pas s por tand bi r t h cert i fi cat e; ( 4) a St at e D epart m entC ount r yR epor ton H um an R i ght s Pr act i ces i n I ndones i a ( t he “C ountryR epor t ”) , and ( 5) t w o i nt ernetar t i cl es s ubm i t t ed byR i y ana. O nl yR i y ana t es t i fi ed att he hea r i ng. D u rin g th e h e a rin g , w h e n a sk e d w h yh e h a d n o t f iled h is a sy lu m a p p lica tio n u n til o v e r th re e y e a rs a f

ter h is a rriv a l in th e U n ited S tate s, R iy a n a re sp o n d e d , “B e c a u se I d id n o tk n o w a b o u tt h e l a w i n t h i s c o u n t r y . ” Ri y a n a a l s o t e s t i f i e d t o th e f

o l l o wi n g f

a c t s . He r ece i ved hi s bache l or ’ s degr ee i n ci vi l engi neer i ng fr om the U ni ver s i t yof Sci ence and E n g inee ri n g N ati o n al i n Ind o n esia. H e f il ed h is asy lum ap p li ca ti o n b ec au se h e f ea rs per s ecut i on as a r es ul tof havi ng been a n act i vi s tand, m or e s peci fi cal l y , a mem berof F O R K O T , a s tu d e n t o rg a n iz a tio n th a t a d v o c a te d re f o rm s in In d o n e s ia ’s g o v e rn m e n t. R iy a n a c laim e d th a t d u e to h is m e m b e rsh ip in F O R K O T , h e re c e iv e d tele p h o n e th re a ts betw een 1998 a nd 2000, i n w hi ch “s om e i ndi vi dual s w ant ed t o captur e [hi m ] and ki dnap [hi m ] . ” H e t es t i fi ed thatt he i ndi vi dual s w ho cal l ed hi m s t at ed: “I f y ou s t i l l w i s h t o l i ve her e y ou m us tnotexpr es s y ourvoi ces aboutr eform at i on. ” R i y ana c oul d noti dent i fyt he per s on orper s ons w ho t hr eat ened hi m , buthe s t at ed thathe bel i eved theyw er e fr om t he-4-

I ndones i an governm ent . R i y ana a l s o t es t i fi ed thathe qui tFO R K O T i n M ar ch 2000, and thatthe l as tt hr eathe r ece i ved w as i n t he ea r l ypartof 2000. R i y ana e xpr es s ed fe arthat upon r eturni ng t o I ndones i a, t he peopl e w ho thr eat ened hi m w oul d s t i l l r ecogni ze hi m as an ac ti v istan d w an t t o h arm h im . H o w ev er, R iy an a d id n o t kn o w if ex -ac ti v ist s w ere b e in g p e rse c u ted in In d o n e sia . A d d iti o n a lly , the o n lyp ro o f th a t R iy a n a o f

f e re d o f h is m e m b e rs h ip in F O R K O T w a s h is s tu d e n t id e n tif ic a tio n c a rd . A tt he conc l us i on of the hea r i ng, the I J r ender ed an or al deci s i on deny i ng the appl i cat i ons forr el i ef a nd gr ant i ng vol unt arydepartur e. A ccor di ng t o t he I J , R i y ana e n ter e d th e U n ited S tate s in O c to b e r 2 0 0 1 , an d w a s p lac e d in re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s in O ct ober2003. T he I J s t at ed thatR i y ana di d notappl yforas y l um unt i l aft erhe w as put i nto r em ov al proceed i ng s, t hat he w as cl earl ybarr ed b ythe o ne-y ear s t atute of l i m i t at i on s, and thatther e w as no evi dence of cha nged ci r cumst ance s t o excus e hi s fai l ur e t o m eett he one- y eardeadl i ne. A ddi t i onal l y , t he I J s t at ed thatthe fa ctthatR i y ana di d notknow about a s y lu m d id n o t a m o u n t to a n e x tr a o rd in a ry c ir c u m s ta n c e u n d e r 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .4 (a )( 5 ). T he I J concl uded thatR i y ana’ s cl ai m w as barr ed forfai l i ng t o m eetthe one- y earfi l i ng d e a d lin e . T h e IJ a lso d ism issed R iy an a’s a p p li ca ti o n fo r w ith h o lding o f re m o v al. T h e IJ n o ted th a t R iy a n a o f

f e re d so m e v a g u e tes tim o n ya b o u t th re a ts f ro m u n k n o w n p e o p le t el l i ng hi m t o qui thi s act i vi t i es w i t h FO R K O T , thatther e w as no evi dence thatany one at t empt ed t o carr youtt he al l eged thr eat s of ki dnapi ng, and thatR i y ana’ s act i vi t i es di d not-5-

change as a r es ul tof thes e thr eat s , w hi ch al l egedl ycont i nued form or e than one y ear . T he I J then conc l uded thatt he conduc tR i y ana e xper i ence d s i m pl ydi d notr i s e t o t he l evel of pas tper s ecut i on. T he I J al s o found thatR i y ana ha d fai l ed t o m eethi s bur den of pr oof th a t itis m o re lik e lyth a n n o t th a t h e w o u ld b e p e rse c u ted in th e f u tu re if re tu rn e d to I ndones i a. I n m aki ng t hi s fi ndi ng, the I J not ed thatR i y ana pr ovi ded abs ol ut el yno corr obor at i on of hi s i nvol vementi n FO R K O T , and fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h t hatform er m ember s of thi s or gani zat i on w er e bei ng per s ecut ed i n I ndones i a. M or eover , the I J not ed thatther e had be en r ece ntdemocr at i c el ect i ons i n I ndones i a. Fi nal l y , the I J deni ed R i y ana’ s cl ai m s underC A T , not i ng thatther e w as abs ol ut el yno evi dence thatR i y ana w o u ld b e torture d b yan y o n e in In d o n esia. T h e IJ, ho w ev er, did g ran t R iy an a’s appl i cat i on forvol unt arydepartur e. R i y ana f i l ed an appeal of the I J ’ s deci s i on, ar gui ng thatthe I J err ed i n det erm i ni ng thatR i y ana di d nots uffe rpas tper s ecut i on and thatther e w as no cl earpr obabi l i t yhe w o u ld su f

f e r f u tu re p e rse c u tio n if

re tu rn e d to In d o n e sia d u e to h is a c tiv iti e s a s a n a c tiv ist. O n M arc h 2 2 , 2 0 0 7 , the B IA d ism issed R iy an a’s a p p ea l and af firm ed the IJ’s deci s i on. T he B I A s t at ed thatR i y ana a r r i ved i n t he U ni t ed St at es i n O ct ober2001, and di d notfi l e hi s as y l um appl i cat i on unt i l D ece m ber2004. T he B I A al s o s t at ed thatR i y ana offe r ed no evi dence of anychange d ci r cumst ance s , and thathi s r eas on forthe l at e fi l i ng di d notcons t i tut e an e xt r aor di naryci r cumst ance . A ccor di ngl y , the B I A concl uded that the evi dence s uppor t ed the I J ’ s det erm i nat i on thatR i y ana w as s t atut or i l yi nel i gi bl e for-6-

a s y lu m d u e to h is f

a ilu re to m e e t th e o n e -ye a r d e a d lin e . T he B I A al s o agr eed w i t h t he I J ’ s concl us i on thatR i y ana di d notfac e a c l ear pr obabi l i tyof per s ecut i on i f r etur ned t o I ndones i a, and thus di d notm er i tw i t hhol di ng of re m o v a l. T h e B IA n o ted th a t R iy a n a c laim e d h e w a s a m e m b e r o f F O R K O T b e g in n in g in 1999, and thathe r ece i ved thr eat eni ng phone ca l l s fr om 1998 t o 2000, i n w hi ch an unknow n per s on orper s ons s t at ed thattheyw er e goi ng t o captur e and ki dnap hi m . T he B IA o b serv ed that the th rea ts be g an ev en b ef o re R iy an a join ed F O R K O T . M o re im p o rt an tl y , the B IA n o ted th at th e a ll eg ed threa ts ne v er m aterial ized an d that there a p p e a rs n o t to h a v e b e e n a n ya tte m p te d k id n a p in g o f R iyan a w h ile h e w a s in In d o n e s ia . T hus , t he B I A agr eed w i t h t he I J t hatthe evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o s how thatthe th re a ts to R iyan a ro s e to th e le v e l o f p a s t p e rs e c u tio n . F inally , the B IA ag ree d w ith the IJ tha t R iy an a h ad n o t est ab li sh ed that itis m o re l i kel yt han nott hathe w oul d be t or tur ed by , oratthe ac qui es cenc e of, the I ndones i an g o v e rn m e n ti f

r e m o v e d t o t h a tc o u n t r y. II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew a fi nal or derof r emoval bythe B I A pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) . H ow ever , w e do nothave j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew a dec i s i on r egar di ng w hetheran as y l um appl i cat i on i s unt i m el yorw hetheran al i en has es t abl i s hed cha nged or e x tr a o r d i n a r yc i r c u ms t a n c e s t h a two u l d e x c u s e a n u n t i me l ya s y l u m a p p l i c a t i o n . 8 U. S . C. § 1 1 5 8 (a)(3); see also S u k w an p u tr a v . G o n za les, 4 3 4 F . 3 d 6 2 7 , 6 3 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ).-7-

I ns ofaras t he B I A adopt ed the fi ndi ngs of the I J , w e mustr evi ew the dec i s i on of the I J , as w el l as t he dec i s i on of the B I A . A bdul ai v. A s hcr oft , 239 F. 3d 542, 549 n. 2 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( “W hen the B I A defe r s t o an I J , a r evi ew i ng courtm us t , as a mat t erof l ogi c, re v ie w th e IJ ’s d e c is io n to a s s e s s w h e th e r t h e B IA ’s d e c is io n to d e f e r w a s a p p ro p ri a te .” ). H o w e v e r, as to m a tters o n w h ich th e B IA iss u e s its o w n o p in io n s a n d d o e s n o t su m m a rily adoptthe fi ndi ngs of the I J , w e r evi ew onl ythe dec i s i on of the B I A . L i v. A t t ’ yG en. of th e U n ite d S ta te s , 4 0 0 F .3 d 1 5 7 , 1 6 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). O urr evi ew i s extr emel ynarr ow i n s cope. A bdul r ahman v. A s hcr oft , 330 F. 3d 587, 591 ( 3d. C i r . 2003) . “The st andar d of r evi ew i s the fa m i l i ar‘ s ubs t ant i al evi dence ’ s t andar d, ” underw hi ch the “‘ admi ni s t r at i ve fi ndi ngs of fa ctar e conc l us i ve unl es s any r eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o t he contr ary . ’ ” Zheng v. G onzal es , 417 F. 3d 379, 381 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ( B ) ) . O ur rev iew o f th e a p p li ca ti o n o f leg al princ iples to u n d ispu ted f ac ts i s d e n o v o . C h en v . A tt ’y G e n . o f th e U n ite d S ta te s , 4 9 1 F .3 d 1 0 0 , 1 0 9 -1 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). III . O n a p p e a l to th is C o u rt, R iy a n a a ss e rts th a t th e IJ m a d e a n e rro n e o u s c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on w hen he f ound R i y ana di d nothave a cr edi bl e cl ai m thathe w as i nvol ved w i th FO R K O T . R i y ana a l s o ar gues thatthe I J and the B I A err ed i n notgr ant i ng R i y ana as y l um and w i t hhol di ng of r emoval bas ed on thei rconcl us i ons thatthe evi dence w as in s u f f ic ie n t to s h o w th a t th e th re a ts to R iyan a ro s e to th e le v e l o f p a s t p e rs e c u tio n .-8-

R i y ana mai nt ai ns t hathe i s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef unde rthe I N A beca us e notonl yhas he su f f e re d p a st p e rse c u tio n f

o r h is a n ti-g o v e rn m e n t ac tiv iti e s, b u t h e a lso h a s a w e llfounded f

earof per s ecut i on s houl d he be r eturned t o I ndones i a. R iy a n a c laim s e rro rs b yb o th th e IJ a n d th e B IA . H o w e v e r, b e c a u se th e B IA d id nots um m ar i l yaff

i r m oradoptt he dec i s i on of the I J , w e l i m i tourr evi ew t o t he dec i s i on of the B I A . L i , 400 F. 3d at162. T her efor e, R i y ana’ s ar gum entthatthe I J m ade a n err oneous cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on i s unavai l i ng as thi s conce r ns an i s s ue out s i de the s c o p e o f o u r r e v ie w . W i th r es pectt o R i y ana’ s appl i cat i on foras y l um , the B I A di s m i s s ed hi s appl i cat i on as unt i m el yand notexcus ed byanychange d orextr aor di naryci r cumst ance s . R i y ana doe s n o t ch a llen g e th is tim e lin e ss d e ter m in a tio n , an d , ev e n if h e d id , w e w o u ld n o t b e a b le to r evi ew i tbeca us e the s t atut e s peci fi cal l ypr ecl udes us fr om exer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on over thi s i s s ue. See 8 U . S. C . § 1158( a) ( 3) . C ons equent l y , w e have no j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i der a n a p p e a l b yR iyan a o f

th e B IA ’s d e c is io n re g a rd in g h is a s y lu m a p p lic a tio n . W e n e x t tu rn to R iy a n a ’s a p p lica tio n f o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. T o b e e lig ib le fo r suc h reli ef

, R iy an a w as re q u ir ed to es tablish a “c lear p rob ab il ity , ” i. e., that “itis m o re l i kel yt han not , ” thathi s l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened i f r eturned t o I ndones i a due t o hi s r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on. Z ubeda v. A s hcr oft , 333 F. 3d 463, 469 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( ci t at i ons and i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) . R i y ana c oul d m eetthi s s t andar d bypr ovi ng pas tper s ecut i on, w hi ch-9-

c re a te s a re b u tta b le p re s u m p tio n o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n . 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 6 (b )( 1 ). Per s ecut i on i s extr eme conducts uch as “‘ t hr eat s t o l i fe, confi nement , t or tur e, and economi c r es t r i ct i ons s o s ever e thattheycons t i tut e a thr eatt o l i fe orfr eedom. ’ ” Li e v. A s hcr oft , 396 F. 3d 530, 536 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng Fat i n v. I N S, 12 F. 3d 1233, 1240 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 9 3 )). “ It is e sta b lish e d , h o w e v e r, th a t th re a ts s tan d in g a lo n e . . . co n stitu te per s ecut i on i n onl ya s m al l cat egoryof ca s es , and onl yw hen the thr eat s ar e s o m enac i ng as t o caus e s i gni fi cantactual ‘ s uffe r i ng orharm . ’ ” Li , 400 F. 3d at164 ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and quot at i ons om i t t ed) . U nful fi l l ed thr eat s m us tbe of a hi ghl yi m m i nentand menaci ng n a tu re in o rd e r t o c o n s titu te p e rs e c u tio n . Id . I n i t s deci s i on, t he B I A concl uded thatR i y ana doe s notfac e a c l earpr obabi l i t yof per s ecut i on i f r etur ned t o I ndones i a. B eca us e the B I A m ade no f i ndi ngs on t he i s s ue of R i y ana’ s cr edi bi l i t y , w e pr ocee d as i f hi s t es t i m onyw as cr edi bl e and de t erm i ne w hether the B I A ’ s deci s i on i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence i n t he fa ce of the as s um ed cr edi bi l i ty . See Li , 400 F. 3d at163 ( ci t i ng K ay embe v. A s hcr oft , 334 F. 3d 231, 235 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ) . I n part i cul ar , t he B I A found thatthe evi dence offe r ed byR i y ana w as i ns uffi ci entt o s how t hatt he thr eat s he r ece i ved r os e t o t he l evel of pas tper s ecut i on. T he BI A r e a c h e d t h i s c o n c l u s i o n a f t e rc o n s i d e r i n g th a tRi y a n a was a me mbe ro f FORK OT; thathe r ece i ved thr eat eni ng phone ca l l s fr om 1998 t hr ough 2000, i n w hi ch uni dent i fi ed in d iv id u a ls th re a ten e d to c a p tu re a n d k id n a p h im ; th a t th e re w e re n o o th e r in c id e n ts in I ndones i a; t hatt he thr eat s neverm at er i al i zed; and thatther e di d notappea rt o have be en-10-

a n ya tte m p te d k id n a p in g o f R iyan a w h ile h e w a s in In d o n e s ia . W e a g re e w ith th e B IA th a t th e th re a ts R iy a n a re c e iv e d w e re n o t su f f icie n tly im m in e n t o r c o n c re te f

o r th e m to b e c o n sid e re d p a st p e rse c u tio n . A d d iti o n a lly , the re is s ubs t ant i al s uppor ti n t he r ecor d forthe B I A ’ s concl us i on thatR i y ana doe s notfac e a cl earpr obabi l i t yof per s ecut i on i f r eturned t o I ndones i a. T her e i s no evi dence thatform er m ember s of FO R K O T ar e bei ng per s ecut ed, the C ount r yR epor tdoes notm ent i on p e rs e c u tio n o f

f o rm e r a c tiv is ts , a n d th e re h a v e b e e n d e m o c ra tic e le c tio n s in In d o n e s ia .

I V . C oncl usi 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 yRi y a n a ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.