SIRINGO RINGO v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-03-23No. No. 17-73293

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review was denied, and the BIA's denial of the motion to reopen was affirmed as within its discretion.

Rika Fristda Siringo Ringo, an Indonesian national, sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to deny her motion to reopen removal proceedings. The BIA rejected her motion as untimely and numerically barred because it was filed more than ten years after her removal order became final. Siringo Ringo had failed to demonstrate material changes in country conditions in Indonesia that would qualify her for an exception to the time and numerical limitations on motions to reopen.

The court found no abuse of discretion in the BIA's decision. The evidence Siringo Ringo presented did not meet the standard of being "qualitatively different" from what was previously considered, which is necessary to justify reopening proceedings based on changed circumstances. The court declined to address her alternative arguments regarding asylum eligibility, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, finding those issues unnecessary given the disposition on the reopening motion.

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

Key issues

Timeliness and numerical bar to motions to reopen removal proceedings
Burden of demonstrating material changes in country conditions
Standard for "qualitatively different" evidence to overcome statutory restrictions

Procedural posture

The petitioner sought judicial review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Rika Fristda Siringo Ringo, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her 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 Siringo Ringos motion to reopen as untimely and number barred, where it was filed more than ten 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 Siringo Ringo did not establish changed country conditions in Indonesia that are material to her 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).

To the extent Siringo Ringo contends the BIA erred by failing to consider her claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) in conducting the changed country conditions analysis, we reject the contention as unsupported by the record.

In light of this disposition, we need not reach Siringo Ringos contentions regarding prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under CAT. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).

As stated in the courts March 12, 2018 order, the stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.