NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 08a0057n.06 Filed: January

16, 2008 No. 06-4489 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

DENNY DEKKER MANO REK, Petitioner,

v.

MI CH AE LB . M UK

ASE Y, At tor

ne y Ge ne ra l, Re sp on de nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW OF AN ORDER OF TH E BO ARD OF IM M IG R A T IO N A P P E A LS

Be for e : S ILER , G IBBO NS, and M c KEA G UE , C ir c uit Judg e s. P ER CURIAM . Denny

Dekke r Manor ek, an I ndonesian c itiz en and national, petitions for revie w of the or der of

the B oard of

I mmigration Appeals (“ BI A”) denying withholding of removal under the I mmigration and Nationality Act (“ I NA”) . The BI A upheld the order of the I mmigration J udg e (“ I J ”), w hich denied w ithholding of re moval afte r finding that Manore k was not cr edible. Manore k arg ues that the I J err ed by finding that he wa s neither Christian nor e thnically Chinese, fi nd ing him no t cr e dib le , an d impr op e rl y ig no ri ng c ountr y c on dit ion re po rt s. B e c a us e the a dv e rs e

cre dibilit y

finding was supporte d by substantial evidenc e and the I J rea ched a re asonable conclusion afte r consider ing the country condition reports, we deny the petition. BACK GR OUND- 2 -

Manore k was a dmitted to the United States at Chicag o in 2000 as a nonimmigr ant visitor for pleasure with authorization to remain in the United S tates for a tempora ry period not to exceed June 23, 2001. I n 2003, the Depa rtment of Homela

nd Security

s er ved him with a Notice to Appe ar (“N TA”) , char g ing that he was subject to r emoval pursuant to § 237(a)( 1)(B ) of the I NA bec ause he had re mained in the United State s for a time longe r than pe rmitted. He a dmitted the fac tual alleg ations in the NTA and c oncede d remova bility

. Mano re k a

pp lie d f or wi thh old ing of re mov a l purs ua nt to § 2 41 (b )( 3) of

the I NA , 8 U. S.C. § 1 2 3 1 (b )( 3 ), base d on his relig ion and ra ce. T he I J denied his application for withholding of

re mov a l a t the c on c lus ion of a me ri ts he a ri ng in 200 5. Th e I J de te rm ine d tha t he wa s n ot c re dib le afte r noting numerous inconsistencies betwee n his a pplication and his testimony at the hea ring . The I J a lso fo un d that the Sta te De pa rtme nt c ountr

y c on dit ion re po rt s f or I nd on e sia

did no t de mon str a te a patter n or pra ctice of

perse cution of Christians and Chinese. On a ppeal, the B I A upheld the I J ’s decision. AN AL YSI S Adverse Credibility Dete rm inati on Whe re , a s h e re , th e B I A a do pts the I J’s r e a so nin g , w e re vie w the I J’s d e c isi on dir e c tly to de te rm ine wh e the r the de c isi on of the B I A s ho uld

be up he ld o n a

pp e a l. Amir v. Gonzales , 467 F.3d 921, 924 (6th Cir. 2006). We revie w an I J ’s adve rse c redibility d et er m i n ation to see whe ther the deter mination is supported by substantial evidence

. Id . at 925. Un d er t h e substantial evidence standard, the I J ’s finding s of fa ct ar e “co n clusive unless any rea sonable a djudicator would be compelled to conc lude to the contra ry .” 8 U .S. C. § 12 52 (b )( 4) (B ); Sin gh v . A sh c ro ft , 398 F.3d 396,- 3 -

400-01 (6th Cir. 2005). Howeve r, “[i] f discrepa ncies cannot be viewed as attempts by the applica nt to e nhance his c laims of perse cution, they have no be aring

on cre dibilit y .” Singh , 398 F.3d at 402. Mano re k argues that th e I J er re d b y fi nd ingthat he wa s n e ith e r C hr ist ian n or e thn ic a lly Chinese. The B I A noted that eve n if he is Christian and Chinese, he was ne verthe less not cre dible. A finding that he is Christian and Chinese does not nece s sarily require g ranting withholding of

re mov a l be c a

us e it w ou ld n ot, by

its e lf , e sta bli sha c le a r p ro ba

bil ity that he wo uld be pe rs e c ute d if forc ed to re turn to I ndonesia. Am ir, 4 6 7 F.3d at 925. There fore , the I J ’s deter mination reg arding his race and re ligion wa s essentially an adve rse c redibility

deter mination. Substantial evi dence supports the adve rse c redibility deter mination. There w ere sever al major inconsist en ci es in Manore k’s testimony . Most notably , he omitted from his withholding

a pp lic a tio n h is a lle g a tio n th a t he wa s r e mov e d fr om a bu s a nd be a te n in 19 98 by Mu sli ms b e c a

us e he wa s Christian. When a sked at the hear ing why his a pplication made no mention of the 1998 bus incident, he state d: “I forg ot. I just re membere d when I opened the document. I just found this letter fr om m y do c tor . A nd

Ifo rg ot t o te ll m y

lawy e r t o a dd

thi s to my a

pp lic a tio n. ” Th e le tte r f

ro m hi s do c tor wa s d a te d M a y 14 , 199 8, a nd state d tha t he wa s a vic tim of a ri ot, re su lti ng in inj ur ie s to his f a c e , h a n d , a n d

l e g s . H e c l a i m e d t h a t h e h a d b r o u g h tt h e l e t t e r

f r o m In d o n e s i a

b u tf o u n d i to n l y a month before the April 25, 2005 merits hea ring . Howeve r, the letter

was translated i nto Eng lish on September 1, 2004, w hich would be impossibl e i f, as h e cl aimed, the letter sat unnoticed in an envelope in his files from his arr i v al i n 2 0 0 0 until March 2005. B eca use the 1998 bus incident dis c re pa nc y wa s an a tte mpt

to e nh a nc e his pe rs e c uti on c la im, it p ro vid e s su

bs tanti a l e vid e nc e to support the adve rse c redibility deter mination. Singh , 398 F.3d at 402.- 4 -

Moreove r, his failure to chec k the “Ye s” box on hi s application for the questions reg arding membership in a r elig ious gr oup and prior arr ests outside the Unit ed States ra ises questions about his verac ity . He c laimed withholding of remova l in part ba sed on fe ars of relig ious persec ution, and he cla imed to have be en a churc h member in Indonesia, but he c hecke d the “No” box for a question that a sk e d w he the r h e ha d b e e n a me mbe r o f a

re lig iou s o rg a nizatio n. De sp ite his c la im o n h is application that he had never been arrested outside the Unit ed S tates, he suddenly reme mbere d at the merits hear ing tha t he was arre sted and jailed f or laug hing at soldiers in I ndonesia. He reme mbere d this incident shortly afte r try ing to stre ng then his c laim of perse cution with his story about the 1998 bu s in c ide nt a

nd the do ctor’ s n ote . B e c a us e the se dis c re pa

nc ie s w e re a tte mpt s to e nh a nc e his pe rs e c uti on c la im, the y pr ov ide d su bs tanti a l e vid e nc e to su pp or t the a dv e rse cred ibi lity deter mination. Id

. Coun try Cond iti ons We reviewan I J ’s treatment of country condition reports in the c ontext of withholding of

remova l under the I

NA to see if the I J rea ched a “re asonable conclusion.” Koulji nksi v. Keisler , 505 F .3 d 5 34 , 5 44 (6 th C ir . 2 00 7) . T he pe tit ion e r m us t po int to “ e vid e nc e that c omp e ls the op po sit e

c o n c lu s io n ” b e f

o r e w e w il l d is tu

r b th e I J’ s tr e a tm e n t o f c o u n tr y c o n d it io n r e ports. Id . Manore k claims that the I J ignor ed co u n t ry condition reports that indica ted violence ag ainst churc hes and Chr ist ia ns in I nd on e sia . H is a

rgume nt fa ils be c a

us e the I J c on sid e re d th e c ountr y c on dit ion re po rt s and re ache d a re asonable conclusion. H e points to no evidence that compels the opposite conc lusion. The I J discussed the c ountry condition reports in deta il and conclude d that they did not show that there was a

pattern or

prac tice of perse cution in I ndonesia. The 2000 country condition report

no te d t h a tt h e r e w a s s o c i o e c o n o m i c a n d p o l i t i c a l t e n s i o n b e t w e e n M u s l i m s a n d C h r i s t i a n s.- 5 -

Howeve r, the I ndonesian gove rnment “actively promotes m utual toleranc e and ha rmony ” amongthe six of fi c ia lly -r e c og nize d r e lig i o n s , w h i c h i nc lud e d Pr ote sta

nt a nd Ca tho lic Chr ist ian d e no min a tio ns . Th e re po rt state d tha t “[r]a c ia lly mot ivate d att a c ks a g a ins t Sin o- I nd on e sia ns have dr op pe d s ha

rp ly since mi d -1 9 9 8 " a

nd that the g overnme nt “offic ially promotes ra cial and e thnic toleranc e.” T he 2004 country condition r eport noted that discrimination a g ainst ethnic Chinese I n d o n es i ans cont in u e d to d e c li n e c o mp a r e d w it h p r e v io u s y e a r s . B a s e d o n th e s e r e p o rts , th e I J rea ched a

rea sonable c onclusion and the e vidence does not compel the opposite c onclusion. CO NC LU SION The pe tition for reviewis DENI ED.