Yani Mulyani v. Eric Holder, Jr.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21643
| 4th Cir. | 2014Background
- Petitioner Yani Mulyani, an Indonesian Christian, and her husband entered the U.S. on tourist visas in 2000 and remained; CIAS filed an asylum application for Mulyani in 2002.
- Mulyani recounts four incidents of anti-Christian violence in Indonesia (1991 beating with broken arm; attempted sexual assault; attack during an anti-Christian protest; Molotov cocktail thrown at her parents’ home). She never reported these incidents to police.
- DHS initiated removal proceedings in 2008; Mulyani sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. An IJ denied relief (found asylum untimely, withholding denied for lack of government unwillingness/inability to control persecutors, CAT relief denied).
- The BIA assumed arguendo the asylum application was timely but upheld the IJ on the merits: government was willing/able to protect and CAT relief was not established.
- The Fourth Circuit declined to reach the timeliness/extraordinary-circumstances question for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed the BIA’s factual findings under the substantial-evidence standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court may review claim that CIAS’s failure to inform Mulyani excuses untimely asylum filing (extraordinary circumstances under §1158) | Mulyani: CIAS fraud/negligence excused filing delay (extraordinary circumstances). | Government: Jurisdiction barred; BIA did not rule on timeliness and §1158(a)(3) precludes review. | Court lacks jurisdiction to review the timeliness exception and did not decide the merits. |
| Whether Mulyani showed government unwilling/unable to control private persecutors for asylum/withholding | Mulyani: Her testimony plus country reports show Indonesia tolerates anti-Christian violence and fails to punish perpetrators. | Government: Record (police response, attackers’ flight at sirens, State Dept. reports of prosecutions and restoration programs) shows government willingness/ability to protect. | Substantial evidence supports BIA finding that she failed to prove government unwilling/unable to control persecutors; asylum/withholding denied. |
| Whether Mulyani established likelihood of torture with government consent/acquiescence for CAT relief | Mulyani: Country reports and news articles show government acquiescence to religiously-motivated abuse. | Government: No evidence officials know Mulyani or would acquiesce; state reports do not compel finding of state acquiescence. | Substantial evidence supports denial of CAT relief; petitioner failed to show it is more likely than not she would be tortured with government acquiescence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Holder, 740 F.3d 902 (4th Cir. 2014) (discussing finality of BIA orders and review scope)
- Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353 (4th Cir. 2009) (jurisdictional bar to review of extraordinary-circumstances timeliness determinations)
- Tassi v. Holder, 660 F.3d 710 (4th Cir. 2011) (standard for upholding BIA asylum determinations under substantial evidence)
- Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265 (4th Cir. 2011) (deferential review of BIA factual findings)
- Lizama v. Holder, 629 F.3d 440 (4th Cir. 2011) (CAT and withholding-of-removal standards; government acquiescence definition)
- Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 714 F.3d 241 (4th Cir. 2013) (evidence required to show government acquiescence to torture)