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- 1890

___________ J UL I ANT O L AU, 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

____________________________________ 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 096- 204- 431) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e R obertP. O w ens

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

J une 17, 2010 B efor e: A M B R O , C H A G A R E S and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y14, 2010 )

_________ OP INI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM J ul i ant o L au pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ’ ( “B I A ”) fin al ord er o f re m o v al. F o r th e re aso n s tha t fo ll o w , w e w il l dism iss th e p eti ti o n in p artL a u c laim e d th a t G a n d a sa p u tra h a dw ritten th e in tro d u c tio n a n d c o n c lu sio n f o r h is 1 ap p lic a tio n , b u t th a t h e h im s e lf h a d p ro v id e d th e ap p lic a tio n ’s s u b s ta n tiv e c o n te n t.

2 a n d d e n yit i n p a rt. I. L a u , a n a tiv e a n d c iti z e n o f In d o n e sia , en ter e d th e U n ited S tate s o n a B -1 v isa in D ece m ber2000. H e r emai ned i n the U ni t ed St at es bey ond the per i od of t i m e al l ow ed u n d e r h is v isa , an d w a s u lti m a telyp lac e d in re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s. H e c o n c e d e d h is r emovabi l i tyand, i n M ay2004, appl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef u n d e r th e C o n v e n tio n A g a in st T o rtu re (“ C A T ” ). H e a rg u e d th a t h e f e a re d re tu rn in g to I ndones i a bec aus e he i s a C hi nes e C hr i s t i an. I n N ovember2007, aft era hea r i ng on the mer i t s , the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) deni ed Lau’ s appl i cat i on. I n doi ng s o, the I J r ej ect ed Lau’ s r eques tforas y l um as u n ti m ely . A s fo r L au ’s claim fo r w ith h o lding o f re m o v al, the IJ c o n clud ed that L au ’s t es t i m onyl acke d cr edi bi l i ty . I n s upportof thi s concl us i on, the I J hi ghl i ght ed s ever al di s cr epanc i es betw een Lau’ s t es t i m onyand hi s as y l um appl i cat i on. T he I J al s o not ed that L au had be en as s i s t ed i n hi s appl i cat i on byM egaw atyG andas aputr a of A s i an A m er i can P lac e m e n t S e rv ice s (“ A A P S ” ), w h o h a d p lea d e d g u iltyin f e d e ra l co u rt in 2 0 0 5 to cons pi r i ng t o comm i tas y l um fr aud. T he I J furtherhel d thatL au’ s w i thhol di ng of 1 r emoval cl ai m fai l ed bec aus e ( 1) m anyof the i nci dent s t o w hi ch Lau t es t i fi ed di d not cons t i tut e per s ecut i on, ( 2) “much of the mosts er i ous i ns t ance s ci t ed by[Lau] occurr edLau d i d n o tap p e a l th e I J ’ s d e n i a l o f h i s u n t i me l ya s y l u m c l a i m. 2 3 dur i ng a t i m e of a nar chyand s tr i fe [ i n I ndones i a] and ca nnotbe cons i der ed t o be p e rs e c u tio n ,” a n d (3 ) L a u ’s f a m ily c o n tin u e d to liv e “ re la tiv e ly u n h a rm e d ” in In d o n e s ia . ( A dm i n. R ec. at50. ) Fi nal l y , the I J r ej ect ed Lau’ s r eques tforC A T r el i ef, not i ng thatL au

“ p ro v id e d n o tes tim o n ya t all to d a yth a t w o u ldin d ica te h e w o u ldb e su b jec ted to to rtu re if re tu rn e d to In d o n e s ia .” (I d . a t 5 1 .) O n ap peal, the B IA up held the IJ’ s deci si on , ho l ding that the IJ’ s adverse cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng w as notcl ear l yerr oneous and thatL au had f ai l ed t o demonstr at e that th e th re a t o f

h a rm to C h in e se C h ristia n s in In d o n e sia w a s “ so sy ste m ic o r p e rv a siv e a s to amountt o a patt ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i on. ” ( I d. at3. ) T he B I A al s o concl uded that L au had notm ethi s bur den forC A T r el i ef. L au now s eeks r evi ew of the B I A ’ s deci s i on. 2 II. W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w a f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l p u rs u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1252( a) ( 1) . W her e, as her e, the B I A “i nvokes s peci fi c as pect s of the I J ’ s anal y s i s and fac t - fi ndi ng i n s upportof [i t s ] concl us i ons , ” w e r evi ew the dec i s i ons of both the I J and the B I A . See V oci v. G onzal es , 409 F. 3d 607, 613 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . W e r evi ew the agenc y ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs , i ncl udi ng i t s cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng, fors ubs t ant i al evi dence . See B uttv. G onzal es , 429 F. 3d 430, 433 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . U nderthi s defe r ent i al s t andar d of revi ew , w e m ustup ho l d the agen cy ’s fi nd i ng s “unles s the ev i den ce no ton l ysupp ort s a co n tr aryco n clus ion , b u t com p els i t. ” A b d il le v. A sh cro ft, 2 4 2 F . 3 d 4 7 7 , 4 8 3 -84 (3d C ir .4

2 0 0 1 ). A lth o u g h L a u ’s c o u n se led b rie f sta tes th a t h is p e tit io n c h a llen g e s th e d e n ial o f h is re q u e sts f

o r a sy lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l, an d C A T re lief , the sc o p e o f

o u r re v iew is actual l ym uch narr ow er . Fi r s t , w e mustdi s m i s s L au’ s as y l um cl ai m becaus e w e l ack j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n s i d e ri t , f o rtwo r e a s o n s : ( 1 ) th e I J r e j e c t e d i ta s u n t i me l y , s e e 8 U. S . C. § 1158( a) ( 3) ; Sukw anputr a v. G onzal es , 434 F. 3d 627, 633- 34 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ; and ( 2) L au di d notr ai s e thi s cl ai m i n hi s appea l t o the B I A , s ee 8 U . S. C . § 1252( d) ( s t at i ng that“[a ] c o u rt m a yre v iew a f

in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l o n lyif

. . . the a lien h a s e x h a u ste d a ll a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies a v a ilab le to th e a lien a s o f rig h t”) . S e c o n d , L a u w a iv e d h is c h a llen g e to th e B IA ’s d e n ial o f h is C A T c laim b yf

a ili n g to su p p o rt th a t cla im in h is br i ef. See Labor er s ’ I nt ’ l U ni on of N . A m . , A FL - C I O v. Fost erW heel erC orp. , 26 F. 3d 375, 398 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ( “A n i s s ue i s w ai ved unl es s a partyr ai s es i ti n i t s openi ng br i ef, and forthos e purpos es a pas s i ng r efe r ence t o an i s s ue . . . w i l l nots uffi ce t o br i ng that iss u e b e f o re th is c o u rt.”) ( in tern a l q u o tatio n m a rk s a n d c itatio n o m itt e d ; o m iss io n in or i gi nal ) . A ccor di ngl y , ourr evi ew i s l i m i t ed t o the B I A ’ s r ej ect i on of Lau’ s cl ai m for w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. A n al i en s eeki ng w i thhol di ng of r emoval m us ts how thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan not thathi s “l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened i n th[e] country[of r emoval ] becaus e of the al i en’ s r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on. ” See 8 U . S. C . § 1231( b) ( 3) ( A ) ; T arr aw al l yv. A s hcr oft , 338 F. 3d 180, 186 ( 3d5

C i r . 2003) . T o s at i s fythi s s t andar d, the al i en musts how ( 1) pas tper s ecut i on, w hi ch cre ates a reb u tt ab le pre su m p ti o n o f f u ture p erse cu ti o n , o r (2) a li k eli h o o d o f f u ture per s ecut i on. See 8 C . F. R . § 208. 16( b) . A n al i en nee d nots how thathe w oul d be s i ngl ed outforfutur e per s ecut i on i f he c an es t abl i s h that“ther e 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 the appl i canton acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i calopi ni on. ” 8 C . F. R . § 1208. 16( b) ( 2) . T o r i s e t o the l evel of a “ patt ern orpr act i ce, ” “the per s ecut i on of the gr oup m us tbe s y s t emi c, pervas i ve, oror gani zed. ” Li e v. A s hcr oft , 396 F. 3d 530, 537 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted). L au appe ar s t o m ake tw o ar gum ent s i n s upportof hi s r eques tforw i thhol di ng of r emoval . Fi r s t , he cont ends thatthe i nci dent s t o w hi ch he t es t i fi ed r i s e t o the l evel of per s ecut i on. W e nee d notcons i derthi s ar gum ent , forthe I J found thatL au’ s t es t i m ony l acke d cr edi bi l i ty , an i s s ue thatL au has now w ai ved byfai l i ng t o ar gue i ti n hi s br i ef. See L abor er s ’ I nt ’ l U ni on of N . A m . , A FL - C I O , 26 F. 3d at398. L a u ’s s e c o n d a rg u m e n t is th a t th e re is a p a ttern o r p ra c tice o f p e rse c u tio n in Ind o n esia a g ains t C h ines e C h ri sti an s. W e h av e p rev iou slyrejected this argu m en t, in p art bas ed on a r evi ew of the U . S. St at e D epartm ent ’ s C ountryR eport s forI ndones i a for2003 and 2004, s ee W ong v. A tt ’ yG en. of the U . S. , 539 F. 3d 225, 233- 34 ( 3d C i r . 2008) , and i t s C ountryR eportfor1999, s ee Li e, 396 F. 3d at537- 38. A l though the r ecor d i n the i ns t antcas e i ncl udes the St at e D epartm ent ’ s 2006 C ountryR eportand i t s 2007I nt ernat i onal R el i gi ous Fr eedom R eport , w e not ed i n W ong thatthes e r eport s “document

s im ila r o r i m p ro v e d tr e a tm e n t o f C h in e s e C h ri s tia n s in In d o n e s ia .” S e e 5 3 9 F .3 d a t 2 3 4 . H avi ng r evi ew ed thes e r eport s , as w el l as the r emai nderof the i ns t antr ecor d, w e ca nnot concl ude thatthe s ubs t ant i al evi dence compel s a fi ndi ng of a pa tt ern orpr act i ce of persecut i on i n Indo nesi a againstC hinese C hri st i ans. In lig h t o f

th e a b o v e , w e w ill d ism iss L a u ’s p e tit io n in p a rt a n d d e n yit i n p a rt.

6