Suyono v. Sessions
690 F. App'x 691
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Suyono Suyono, an Indonesian national, was granted asylum by an Immigration Judge (IJ) based on past mistreatment by native Indonesian Muslims and the government’s inability/unwillingness to protect him.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) sua sponte reversed the IJ’s grant of asylum on March 26, 2012, concluding no past persecution and that country conditions had changed.
- The Government did not contest the IJ’s past-persecution finding before the BIA; a BIA member dissented from the reversal.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo and assumed petitioner’s credibility in this posture.
- The court found the BIA failed to adequately explain (1) why petitioner’s mistreatment did not constitute persecution, (2) why the Indonesian government was able/willing to protect him, and (3) why changed country conditions justified denying asylum.
- The Second Circuit vacated the BIA’s decision and remanded for further proceedings, rejecting the Government’s post-hoc rationalizations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Suyono suffered past persecution | Suyono: assaults and police inaction constituted persecution | Government/BIA: mistreatment did not rise to persecution | Court: BIA failed to explain why record did not show persecution; remand required |
| Whether Indonesian government was unwilling/unable to protect | Suyono: police failed to protect despite reports and interventions were insufficient | BIA: police intervened in 1992 and reports filed, showing protection was available | Court: BIA did not address petitioner’s testimony and failed to justify its contrary conclusion |
| Whether country conditions changed such that asylum is barred despite past persecution | Suyono: country conditions had not fundamentally changed since 1995 | BIA: cited portions of State Department report to find changed conditions | Court: BIA did not apply or explain correct clear-error standard and relied on same materials without rebutting IJ’s conclusions |
| Whether court may accept post-hoc rationalizations by Government | Suyono: BIA’s stated reasons must stand alone; no new rationales allowed | Government: urged alternative justifications on appeal | Court: refused to accept new rationales; agency must provide its own adequate explanation |
Key Cases Cited
- Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268 (2d Cir.) (assumption of credibility for appellate review posture)
- Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297 (2d Cir.) (de novo review of BIA legal conclusions)
- Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir.) (clear-error standard for changed-country-conditions review)
- Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332 (2d Cir.) (distinguishing harassment from persecution; non–life-threatening abuse can be persecution)
- Poradisova v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 70 (2d Cir.) (agency must provide minimum level of analysis; courts will not supply missing reasoning)
- Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104 (2d Cir.) (rejecting judicial adoption of hypothetical agency rationales)