Sunarno v. Mukasey , 293 F. App'x 8 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                 Not for Publication in West’s Federal Reporter
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit
    No. 07-2623
    EDDY SUNARNO,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    Respondent.
    ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER
    OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
    Before
    Lynch, Chief Judge,
    Boudin and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
    Cindy S. Chang for petitioner.
    Samia   Naseem,  Trial   Attorney,   Office  of   Immigration
    Litigation, Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General,
    Civil Division, and Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant Director, Office
    of Immigration Litigation, on brief for respondent.
    September 25, 2008
    Per Curiam.        Petitioner Eddy Sunarno, a native and
    citizen of Indonesia, seeks review of a decision of the Board of
    Immigration   Appeals   (BIA)   denying   his   motion    to   reopen   his
    immigration   proceedings,    which   consisted   of    applications    for
    asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
    Against Torture (CAT).    Sunarno, who is Catholic, alleges that he
    was persecuted by Indonesian Muslims on account of his religion.
    We deny the petition.
    I.
    At a hearing before an Immigration Judge (IJ), Sunarno
    provided the following testimony.         He was born in Indonesia in
    1957, and was baptized as a Catholic in 1986.          On August 7, 1992,
    he was on his way to the central market when he was followed and
    stopped by two Muslim men who demanded to see his identification
    card (which listed his address and identified him as a Catholic).
    These men threatened to kill Sunarno and his family if he refused
    to convert to Islam.
    Several days later, in the middle of the night on August
    13, 1992, two men who he believed were the earlier assailants set
    fire to the convenience store that he owned and operated.         Sunarno
    testified that when the convenience store burned down, he lost
    $600,000, but that he did not report the fire and the loss to the
    -2-
    authorities.1   Petitioner then moved to Jakarta and experienced no
    further violence during his two remaining years in Indonesia.
    Sunarno entered the United States on March 18, 1994 as a
    non-immigrant visitor authorized to remain in the country through
    September 17, 1994.      In a Notice to Appear issued on April 21,
    2003, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) charged petitioner
    as removable under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1227
    (a)(1)(B) as an alien who had
    overstayed his visa.       On October 13, 2003, he filed an asylum
    application with the former INS.
    At a hearing in July 2005, Sunarno conceded removability,
    but   renewed   his   request   for   relief   in   the   form   of   asylum,
    withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT.
    In an oral decision, the IJ ruled that, because Sunarno
    had failed to apply for asylum within one year of his arrival in
    the United States, as required by 
    8 U.S.C. § 1158
    (a)(2)(B)(2002),
    his request for asylum was time-barred. Additionally, the IJ found
    that petitioner did not qualify for any of the exceptions to the
    one-year filing deadline.       With respect to his CAT and withholding
    of removal claims, the IJ made several adverse credibility findings
    and ruled that Sunarno had failed to establish that it was more
    1
    Petitioner's asylum application also indicates that while
    he and his family watched the store burn down from his nearby home,
    his father collapsed and died.        Petitioner did not mention
    witnessing the store's destruction or the death of his father
    during his direct testimony before the IJ, and when cross-examined
    by the government's attorney, he stated that he had forgotten these
    facts.
    -3-
    likely than not that he would suffer persecution or torture upon
    his return to Indonesia.
    The     BIA   did   not     address   the   IJ's     credibility
    determination, but upheld the IJ's ruling that Sunarno's asylum
    claim was time-barred and affirmed the denial of his CAT and
    withholding of removal claims. Sunarno did not petition this court
    for review of that decision.
    Instead, he filed a motion to reopen, seeking to submit
    additional testimony and evidence relevant to his claims.2              This
    "new" evidence consisted mainly of newspaper articles documenting
    the prejudice and violence that Christians in Indonesia experienced
    at the hands of Muslim extremists.         The Board denied petitioner's
    motion to reopen, finding that the articles were insufficient to
    establish a pattern or practice of persecution of Christians and
    "[did]   not    demonstrate   that    conditions   ha[d]     worsened   for
    Christians in Indonesia such that the respondent would now be able
    to show a clear probability that he would be persecuted in his
    country of origin on account of his religion."
    II.
    We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of
    discretion.    Raza v. Gonzales, 
    484 F.3d 125
    , 127 (1st Cir. 2007).
    2
    Although his motion to reopen also alleged a due process
    violation based on a problem with the interpreter at his hearing,
    Sunarno failed to mention this argument in the brief submitted to
    this court, and it has therefore been waived.       Nikijuluw v.
    Gonzales, 
    427 F.3d 115
    , 120 n.3 (1st Cir. 2005).
    -4-
    Because motions to reopen implicate significant policy concerns, we
    must give substantial deference to the Board's decisions on such
    requests.    See, e.g., Beltre-Veloz v. Mukasey, 
    533 F.3d 7
    , 9 (1st
    Cir. 2008) (explaining that motions to reopen are disfavored in
    light   of   the   strong   public   interest     in   finality     and   speedy
    processing of claims); Lemus v. Gonzales, 
    489 F.3d 399
    , 401 (1st
    Cir. 2007).    Accordingly, "we will uphold a denial of a motion to
    reopen unless we conclude that the BIA either committed a material
    error   of   law   or   exercised    its   authority     in    an   arbitrary,
    capricious, or irrational manner."         Beltre-Veloz, 
    533 F.3d at 9
    .
    To succeed on a motion to reopen, petitioner must state
    "new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the
    motion is granted."       
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (c)(1); see also Kechichian
    v. Mukasey, 
    535 F.3d 15
    , 22 (1st Cir. 2008).             A motion to reopen
    must be denied unless the new evidence "establish[es] a prima facie
    case sufficient to ground a claim of eligibility for the underlying
    substantive    relief."      Raza,   
    484 F.3d at 128
    .        We    address
    petitioner's claims for withholding of removal and relief under the
    CAT in turn.
    An alien applying for withholding of removal must show
    that it is "more likely than not" that either he will be singled
    out for persecution upon return to his country of origin, 
    8 C.F.R. § 1208.16
    (b)(2), or that there is a "pattern or practice" in his
    -5-
    home country of persecution of a group with which he identifies.
    
    Id.
       Sunarno made no such showing in this case.
    In his brief before this court, petitioner does not even
    attempt to prove that he would be singled out for persecution in
    Indonesia.    Instead, he makes a cursory reference to an alleged
    "pattern or practice" of discrimination against Christians in
    Indonesia and draws the unsupported conclusion that "for sure [he]
    would be persecuted on account of his religion" if forced to
    return.      However,   the   Board    reasonably   determined   that   the
    additional evidence submitted by Sunarno in connection with his
    motion to reopen was insufficient for a prima facie showing of
    eligibility for relief.
    This court has "repeatedly held that 'discrimination in
    Indonesia does not, without more, qualify a Christian Indonesian
    national for asylum.'"        Datau v. Mukasey, ___ F.3d ___, 
    2008 WL 3917134
    , at *3 (1st Cir.          Aug. 27, 2008) (quoting Sombah v.
    Mukasey, 
    529 F.3d 49
    , 51 (1st Cir. 2008)); see also Pulisir v.
    Mukasey, 
    524 F.3d 302
    , 308-09 (1st Cir. 2008); Kho v. Keisler, 
    505 F.3d 50
    , 58 (1st Cir. 2007).3          The new evidence submitted along
    with petitioner's motion to reopen did not establish anything
    "more" than isolated incidents of such discrimination.             As the
    3
    Indeed, in recent decisions, we have noted an improvement
    in conditions for Indonesian Christians and an "advance in inter-
    religious tolerance." See, e.g., Datau, 
    2008 WL 3917134
    , at *3;
    Nikijuluw v. Gonzales, 
    427 F.3d 115
    , 119, 122 (1st Cir. 2005).
    -6-
    Board noted, the new evidence, which consisted mainly of news
    articles about specific crimes in Indonesia, merely indicated that
    "Muslim extremists continue to carry out terrorist attacks and that
    Christians are sometimes targeted for violence."    Petitioner did
    not establish a change in country conditions that would have
    allowed him to prove that, if returned to Indonesia, he was more
    likely than not to be persecuted as part of a general pattern or
    practice.    Therefore, his claim for withholding of removal must
    fail.
    In order to qualify for relief under the CAT, an alien
    must show that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured
    upon return to his country.    
    8 C.F.R. § 1208.16
    (b)(2); Jamal v.
    Mukasey, 
    531 F.3d 60
    , 66 (1st Cir. 2008).     The new evidence in
    Sunarno's motion to reopen was plainly insufficient to establish a
    prima facie case for relief under the CAT.   In any event, because
    petitioner's brief does not make any argument about his eligibility
    for relief under the CAT, the issue has been waived.
    Petition denied.
    -7-