KOJONGIAN v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-04-27No. No. 19-72334

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review was denied because the Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the motion to reopen as untimely and numerically barred, where Kojongian failed to establish materially changed country conditions in Indonesia warranting an exception to those limitations.

Wira Reagan Kojongian, an Indonesian national, sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to reject his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Kojongian filed his motion more than eleven years after his removal order became final, exceeding both the time limits and numerical caps set by immigration regulations. The court examined whether he had demonstrated materially changed conditions in Indonesia that would justify an exception to these procedural barriers, as required by law.

The court found that Kojongian failed to present evidence of changed circumstances in Indonesia that was sufficiently different in character from what was previously considered. Because the motion was both untimely and numerically barred, and because Kojongian did not meet the legal standard for an exception based on changed country conditions, the Board did not act unreasonably in denying the reopening request.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether the BIA abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen removal proceedings as untimely and numerically barred
Whether changed country conditions in Indonesia constituted material evidence sufficient to qualify for an exception to reopening limitations
Scope of judicial review limited to the administrative record

Procedural posture

Kojongian petitioned for review of the BIA's order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings in the United States Court of Appeals.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Wira Reagan Kojongian, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIAs denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kojongians motion to reopen as untimely and number barred, where it was filed more than eleven years after the order of removal became final and was beyond the numerical limitations, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where Kojongian did not establish changed country conditions in Indonesia that are material to his claim for relief, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) (requiring material evidence of changed circumstances to qualify for exception to the time and numerical limitations for motions to reopen); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening).

We deny Kojongians motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 10). See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (the courts review is limited to the administrative record).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is otherwise denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.