Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Tumundo v. Attorney General of the United States
Citation: 342 F. App'x 788Docket: No. 08-2027
Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; August 27, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
Richard Tumundo, a native and citizen of Indonesia, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) final order of removal after conceding his removability due to overstaying his non-immigrant visa. In 2004, he applied for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Tumundo testified that in 1994, his girlfriend's family kidnapped him to force him to convert to Islam, threatening his life in the process. After escaping captivity, he lived in Indonesia for several months before moving to the U.S. He later learned that his girlfriend's family threatened his father, who was raising their child, with death if the child was raised as a Christian. Tumundo expressed fear of returning to Indonesia due to the family's adherence to the tradition of 'siri,' which necessitates killing him for refusing to convert and marry. He argued that the Indonesian police would not protect him and that relocation within Indonesia would not ensure his safety due to the family's potential reach and general anti-Christian sentiment in the country. The Immigration Judge (IJ), while finding Tumundo credible, denied his applications, stating that the incidents he described did not constitute past persecution or meet the criteria for withholding of removal, as they were not linked to protected grounds. The IJ also noted the significant time lapse since the abduction and the family's inability to pursue him beyond their island. The BIA upheld the IJ's findings, concluding that Tumundo's experiences did not amount to persecution and that he failed to demonstrate a likelihood of future persecution upon returning to Indonesia. The BIA determined that Tumundo failed to demonstrate an inability to avoid future persecution by relocating within Indonesia. He did not seek protection from the Indonesian government nor provide sufficient evidence that the police would be unwilling to assist him due to the tradition of siri. The BIA also dismissed Tumundo's claim regarding a pattern of persecution against Christians in Indonesia. Tumundo is now petitioning for review of the BIA’s decision, specifically contesting the denial of withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). The court has jurisdiction to review final removal orders under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and will focus on the BIA's decision, applying a standard of substantial evidence. To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must show a likelihood of persecution based on specific protected grounds. The BIA found no evidence that the Indonesian government was unable or unwilling to control potential threats from Tumundo’s girlfriend’s family. Tumundo's assertion of a pattern of persecution against Christians was unsupported by evidence, as previous findings indicated improved conditions. Consequently, the court will deny Tumundo's petition for review and noted that he waived any challenge to the BIA's rejection of relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).