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 7-2-2008 

# W ongso 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 . 07-3494

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 " W on gs o v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 912. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/912Pet i t i oner s r efe rt o Sw andaj ani thr oughoutthei rbr i ef a s “M s . Fnu. ” “FN U ” i s the 1 comm onl yus ed abbr evi at i on for“fi r s tname unknow n. ” W e w i l l r efe rt o pet i t i onerbyt he 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. 07- 3494

___________ CH AR L E S WONGS O; S W A N D A JA N I, P eti ti o n ers

v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ 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 os . A 96- 262- 256, A 96- 262- 257) Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on orabl e D on al d V i ncen tF erl i se

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

J une 25, 2008 B efor e: M C K E E , N Y G A A R D and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed J ul y2, 2008 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM

C har l es W ongs o and FN U Sw andaj ani , nat i ves and ci t i zens of I ndones i a, 1n a m e u se d a t th e im m ig ra tio n h e a rin g , S w a n d a jan i. 2 pet i t i on forr evi ew of a de ci s i on bythe 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 thei rappea l of an i m m i gr at i on j udge’ s deni al of thei rappl i cat i on forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef unde rt he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . Forthe fol l ow i ng re a s o n s , w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w . Pet i t i oner s W ongs o and Sw andaj ani ar e ethni cal l yC hi nes e and Chri s t i ans . T hey a re m a rr ie d to e a c h o th e r a n d h a v e tw o c h ild re n w h o w e re b o rn h e re in th e U n ite d S ta te s . P e tit io n e rs w e re a d m itt e d to th e U n ited S tate s in 1 9 9 8 a s n o n -im m ig ra n t v isito rs w ith author i zat i on t o r emai n unt i l M ay1999, butneverl eft . I n A pr i l 2003, the D epart m entof H o m e lan d S e c u rityiss u e d N o tice s to A p p e a r c h a rg in g p e tit io n e rs w ith b e in g su b jec t to re m o v a l u n d e r t h e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A c t § 2 3 7 (a )( 1 )( B ), 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 (a )( 1 )( B ), f

o r r e m a in in g in th e U n ite d S ta te s b e y o n d th e a u th o ri z e d p e ri o d . Pet i t i oner s admi t t ed the fa ctual al l egat i ons i n t he not i ces , conce ded r emovabi l i t y , and ap p li ed 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 C A T . P eti ti o n ers s u b s e q u e n tly w ith d re w th e ira s y lu m a p p lic a tio n s , w h ic h w e re u n tim e ly. I n s uppor tof hi s appl i cat i on forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval and pr ot ect i on under C A T , W ongs o t es t i fi ed thathe w as fr equent l yi ns ul t ed, pus hed, and hi tbyM us l i m s w hen he w as gr ow i ng up. W ongs o al s o al l eged thathe w as unabl e t o att end col l ege be caus e the col l eges i n I ndones i a cha r ged hi gherfee s forC hi nes e s tudent s . I n 1996, W ongs o w as h o sp it ali ze d af

ter he w as a ssau lt ed b ya g rou p o f M u sli m s w h o stole h is m o torcy cle. I n3

1997, hi s par ent s ’ s t or e w as bur ned and l oot ed and the fa m i l yhom e w as al s o bur ned dur i ng a r i ot . W ongs o’ s fatherw as hi tunt i l he w as uncons ci ous . W ongs o t es t i fi ed that he neve rhad anypr obl ems i n I ndones i a due t o hi s C hr i s t i an r el i gi on. W ongs o s ai d t hat h e le f t I n d o n e s ia b e c a u s e h e f e a re d a re c u rr e n c e o f

th e M a y1 9 9 8 ri o ts . Sw andaj ani t es t i fi ed thats he w as al s o i ns ul t ed as a chi l d byM us l i m s . I n 1989, s he w as or al l yi ns ul t ed aboutherC hi nes e ethni ci t ybya gr oup of M us l i m s w hi l e r eturni ng hom e fr om chur ch. T hats ame y ear , a gr oup of M us l i m s demanded m oneyfr om herand s pi ton herw hen s he r efus ed. A not hert i m e, s om e M us l i m s agai n demanded m oneyfr om herand pul l ed herhai raft ers he r efus ed. Sw andaj ani ’ s par ent s ’ gr ocerys t or e w as bur ned dow n i n M ay1998 dur i ng r i ot s i n t he t ow n of N gaw i . L i ke herhus band, Sw andaj ani te s tif ie d th a t s h e n e v e r h a d a n yp ro b le m s in In d o n e s ia d u e to h e r C h ri s tia n re lig io n . S w a n d a jan i cla im e d th a t sh e f

e a re d sh e m a yb e k ill e d b yM u slim s if sh e re tu rn s to I ndones i a. O n M ay2, 2005, fol l ow i ng a hea r i ng, the I J deni ed pet i t i oner s ’ appl i cat i ons for rel i ef. T he IJ foun d thatpeti t i on ers had t est i fi ed credibl y , bu thad no tproven anypast p e rse c u tio n o r th e c lea r p ro b a b ili tyo f f u tu re p e rse c u tio n . T h e IJ f o u n d th a t th e in su lts pet i t i oner s ’ r ecount ed di d notr i s e t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on. I n addi t i on, the I J found thatthe i nci dent s w her e M us l i m s acc os t ed pet i t i oner s on t he s t r eetand demanded money di d notoccuron acc ountof thei rethni ci t yorthei rr el i gi on. R ather , the I J found thatt he as s ai l ant s w er e mot i vat ed byt he des i r e t o r ob pet i t i oner s of m oney . T he I J al s o found4

that, even i f t he m on et arydem and s w ere m oti vated byan en um erat ed g round , these a c tio n s d id n o t rise to th e lev e l o f p e rse c u tio n . W ith re sp e c t to th e d a m a g e to th e ir parent s’ ho m es and st ores, t he IJ concluded that these w ere “i sol at ed cri m i nal act s, perpetr at ed byunknow n as s ai l ant s ” thatdi d notcons t i tut e per s ecut i on. T he I J fur t her found thatpet i t i oner s fai l ed t o pr ove thatther e w as a cl earpr obabi l i t ythattheyw oul d be s i ngl ed outforper s ecut i on ort hatt her e exi s t s a patt ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on of e th n ic C h in e se C h ristia n s. T h e IJ r e jec ted p e tit io n e rs’ C A T c laim , b u t g ra n ted th e ir a p p lic a tio n s f

o r v o lu n ta ry d e p a rt u re . P e tit io n e rs a p p e a led a n d th e B IA re m a n d e d th e re c o rd b e c a u se o f a n in c o m p lete tr ans cr i pt i on of the hea r i ng. W hen the tr ans cr i ptw as compl et ed, the r ecor d w as r etur ned to the B IA . T h e B IA then d ism issed the a p p ea l. T h e B IA co n clud ed that p eti ti o n ers fai l ed t o s how t hatt he I J err ed i n fi ndi ng thattheydi d notes t abl i s h pas tper s ecut i on. T he B I A hel d thatt he i nci dent s pet i t i oner s des cr i bed di d notr i s e t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on b ec au se th eylack ed sev erityo r th eyw ere isolated ac ts of crim inal co n d u ct. T h e B IA fur therconcl uded thatt he evi dence of r ecor d, s peci fi cal l ythe 2004 C ount r yR epor tfor Indon esi a, i nd i cat ed thati nst ances o f dis cri m i nati on and harass m ent of et hn i c C hinese I ndones i ans had dec l i ned compar ed w i t h pr evi ous y ear s . I n addi t i on, the B I A obs erved thatpet i t i oner s ’ s i bl i ngs and par ent s cont i nued t o l i ve and w or k i n I ndones i a w i t hout in c id e n t. A c c o rd in g ly , the B IA h e ld th a t p e tit io n e rs h a d n o t sh o w n “ a re a so n a b le pos s i bi l i tym uch l es s a l i kel i hood of per s ecut i on on t hi s r ecor d. ” The B I A aff i r m ed the5

I J ’ s gr antof vol unt arydepartur e. Pet i t i oner s t i m el yappea l ed fr om the B I A ’ s or der d is m is s in g th e ira p p e a l. W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew fi nal or der s of the B I A unders ect i on 2424( a) ( 1) of th e IN A , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(1 ). W h e re , as h e re , the B IA iss u e d a d e c isio n o n th e m e rits and nots i m pl ya s um m aryaff i r m ance , w e r evi ew the B I A ’ s , notthe I J ’ s , deci s i on. See G ao v. A s hcr oft , 299 F. 3d 266, 271 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . W e mustuphol d t he B I A ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs i f theyar e “s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr obat i ve evi dence on the r e c o r d c o n s i d e r e d a s a w h o l e . ” I N S v . E l i a s - Z a c a r i a s , 5 0 2 U . S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 ( 1 9 9 2 ) . We s houl d fi nd s ubs t ant i al evi dence l acki ng onl yw her e the evi dence “w as s o compel l i ng t hat no r eas onabl e fa ct fi ndercoul d fai l t o fi nd the al i en el i gi bl e foras y l um orw i t hhol di ng of rem o v al. ” Id . at 48 3 -84 ; see a lso 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(4 )(B ). T he A t t or neyG ener al m us tgr antw i t hhol di ng of r emoval i f he “ deci des thatthe al i en’ s l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened” i n t he countr yof r emoval “bec aus e of the al i en’ 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 o p in io n .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 (b )(3 )(A ). T h e a lien b e a rs th e b u rd e n o f p ro v in g th a t h e w ill m o re lik e ly th a n n o t f

a c e 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) . “To m eetthi s t es t , the al i en mustdemonstr at e that ther e i s a gr eat er - t han- fi fty - per centchanc e of pe r s ecut i on upon hi s orherr eturn. ” S enathi raj ah v . IN S , 15 7 F . 3d 21 0, 21 5 (3d C i r. 19 98 ). If the ali en can dem on strat e past per s ecut i on, t hen thatfi ndi ng w i l l r ai s e a r ebut t abl e pr es um pt i on thatthe al i en’ s “l i fe or6

freedom w ou l d b e t hreat ened i n the futur e . . . . ” 8 C . F . R . § 1 20 8. 16 (b) (1) (i ). P ast per s ecut i on r equi r es pr oof of “ ( 1) one orm or e i nci dent s r i s i ng t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on; ( 2) t hati s ‘ on acc ountof’ one of the s t atut or i l y - pr ot ect ed gr ounds ; and ( 3) i s comm i t t ed e ith e r b yth e g o v e rn m e n t o r b yf o rc e s th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t is e ith e r u n a b le o r u n w ill in g to contr ol . ” M ul anga v. A s hcr oft, 34 9 F . 3d 12 3, 13 2 (3d C i r. 20 03 ). U nd er our cases ,

“‘ per s ecut i on’ i s an extr eme conceptthatdoes noti ncl ude eve r ys or tof tr eatm entour so cietyreg ard s as o ff

en sive . ” F ati n v . IN S , 1 2 F . 3 d 1 2 3 3 , 1 2 4 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). It encompas s es onl ygr ave ha r m s s uch as “thr 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. ” I d. at1240. Per s ecut i on “does noti ncl ude al l t r eatm entthatours oci etyr egar ds as unfai r , unj us t , or even unl aw ful oruncons t i tut i onal . ” A hm ed v. A s hcr oft , 341 F. 3d 214, 217 ( 3d C i r . 2003) (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). A n appl i cantw ho has nots uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on m aydemonstr at e thathi s orher l i fe or freedom w ou l d b e t hreat ened i n the futur e i f t he ap pli cant es t abli shes that there i s a patt ern orpr act i ce of

per s ecut i on of a gr oup of per s ons s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed t o t he appl i cant on acc ountof 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, or pol i t i cal opi ni on. 8 C . F. R . § 208. 16( b) ( 2) ( i ) . T o qual i fyas a “pa t t ern orpr act i ce, ” the per s ecut i on m us tbe “s y s t emi c, pervas i ve, oror gani zed. ” Li e v. A s chcr oft , 396 F. 3d 530, 5 3 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T o pr evai l on a C A T cl ai m , an appl i cantm us t“es t abl i s h t hati ti s m or e l i kel yt hanPet i t i oner s al s o cont end thatt heys uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on beca us e W ongs o w as 2 for ced t o t ake M us l i m educa t i on cl as s es and fa ced e xt or t i on w hen att empt i ng t o pay col l ege tui t i on orobt ai n governm entcontr ol l ed document s . Pet i t i oner s di d notm ake a ny a rg u m e n ts b a se d o n th e se in c id e n ts b e f o re th e B IA a n d th e re f

o re th e ya re n o t p ro p e rly befor e us . See A bdul r ahman v. A s hcr oft , 330 F. 3d 587, 594- 95 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( hol di ng that this C o u rtd o es n o t hav e jurisdicti o n to rev iew arg u m en ts no t r aised b ef o re the B IA b e c a u s e th e ya re u n e x h a u s te d ). 7 notthathe ors he w oul d be t or tur ed i f r emoved t o t he pr opos ed countr yof r emoval . ” 8 C . F. R . § 208. 16( c) ( 2) . See al s o T our e v. A t t orneyG ener al of the U ni t ed St at es , 443 F. 3d 3 1 0 , 3 1 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T h e B IA ’s c o n c lu sio n th a t p e tit io n e rs f a iled to e sta b lish p a st p e rse c u tio n is s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the r ecor d. O n appea l , pet i t i oner s cl ai m thatthey s uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on beca us e theyw er e r egul ar l yhar as s ed, theyw er e r obbed, and thei rpar ent s ’ hom es and bus i nes s es w er e des tr oy ed dur i ng s epar at e r i ot s i n 1997 and 1 9 9 8 . A lth o u g h th e h a rm d e sc rib e d b yp e tit io n e rs is u n f o rtu n a te, it d o e s n o t co n stitu te 2 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 ener al , 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 n s u f f i c i e n tt o s h o w p a s tp e r s e c u t i o n ) ; F a t i n , 1 2 F . 3 d a t1 2 4 3 ( “ p e r s e c u t i o n i s a n e x t r e me c o n c e p t th a t d o e s n o t in c lu d e e v e ry so rt o f tr e a tm e n t o u r s o c ie ty re g a rd s a s o f f e n s iv e .” ). M or eover , as found byt he B I A , pet i t i oner s t es t i fi ed thattheydi d notencount erany8

p ro b le m s in In d o n e s ia b a s e d o n th e irC h ri s tia n re lig io n . Pet i t i oner s al s o fai l ed t o demonstr at e thattheyw oul d m or e l i kel ythan notfac e p erse cu ti o n o n ac co u n t of a p rotec ted g rou n d . O n ap p ea l, p eti ti o n ers a rgu e tha t th eyare m em bers of a grou p o f si m i l arl ysi tuated persons w ho are s ubj ectt o p ers ecuti on becau se th e ya re e th n ic C h in e se C h ristia n s. T h e re c o rd d o e s n o t sh o w th a t th e tre a tm e n t o f e th n ic C hi nes e C hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a i s t he r es ul tof governm entact i on oracqui es cenc e, ort hat i tcons t i tut es a patt ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on. W e have hel d t hatvi ol ence di r ect ed agai ns tC hi nes e C hr i s t i ans i n I ndones i a “doe s notappea rt o be s uffi ci ent l yw i des pr ead a s t o cons t i tut e a pa t t ern orpr act i ce, ” Li e, 396 F. 3d at537, and pet i t i oner s fai l ed t o adduce evi dence t hatw oul d have w arr ant ed a c ont r aryconcl us i on i n t hi s cas e. I ndeed, the 2004 C ount ryR epor tr el i ed on byt he B I A i ndi cat ed thati ns t ance s of di s cr i m i nat i on and h a ra s s m e n t o f

e th n ic C h in e s e h a d d e c lin e d c o m p a re d w ith p re v io u s y e a rs . P eti ti o n ers’ arg u m en t th at th eir du e p roc ess righ ts w ere v iolated b ec au se th e B IA f a iled to re v iew th e e n tire r e c o rd a n d m a d e little m o re th a n a c u rso rye v a lu a tio n o f th e ir cl ai m s i s w i t houtm er i t . T he B I A ’ s opi ni on evi dence s i t s cons i der at i on of the i ndi vi dual ci r cumst ance s of the pet i t i oner s ’ appl i cat i ons . See A bdul ai v. A s hcr oft , 239 F. 3d 542, 5 5 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). Fi nal l y , w i t h r es pectt o t hei rC A T cl ai m , pet i t i oner s have f ai l ed t o demonstr at e that th e ya re lik e lyto b e to rtu re d b y , o r w ith th e a c q u ies c e n c e o f , g o v e rn m e n t o f

f icia ls if rem o v ed to In d o n esia. S ee 8 C . F . R . § § 1 2 0 8 . 1 6 (c), 1 2 0 8 . 1 8 (a).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.