SAMIADJI v. WILKINSON (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-02-19No. No. 15-71014

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court granted in part and denied in part the petition for review, and remanded the case to the BIA to reconsider the motion to reopen with proper analysis of the evidence regarding materially changed country conditions and the petitioners' membership in a disfavored group.

Two Indonesian citizens challenged the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to deny their motion to reopen removal proceedings. The court found that the BIA abused its discretion in two respects: first, it rejected the petitioners' claim that country conditions in Indonesia had materially changed since 2009 without examining or explaining why the thirty-two submitted exhibits failed to support that argument; and second, it denied their asylum and withholding claims without addressing their specific contention that they faced persecution based on membership in a disfavored group, instead dismissing their evidence as reflecting only general country conditions.

The court emphasized that an agency must provide reasoned explanations for its decisions and meaningfully engage with the evidence and arguments presented. Because the BIA failed to do so here, the court remanded the case for the BIA to conduct a more thorough review of the record and explain its reasoning in light of the petitioners' specific claims.

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 by denying a motion to reopen as untimely without explaining why evidentiary submissions did not establish materially changed conditions
Whether the BIA abused its discretion by denying asylum and withholding claims without addressing petitioner's argument about persecution based on group membership
Standards for agency reasoned decision-making and meaningful consideration of evidence

Procedural posture

Indonesian nationals petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of their motion to reopen removal proceedings, and the court exercised jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to review for abuse of discretion.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Edwin Djohan Samiadji and Meivy Vike Poluan, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

Petitioners do not raise, and have therefore waived, any challenge to the BIAs denial of their request to reopen pursuant to its sua sponte authority, or to the BIAs determination that they failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief under the Convention Against Torture. See Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056, 1058 n.3 (9th Cir. 2010) (issues not raised or argued in a partys opening brief are waived).

The BIA abused its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely because the BIA failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that petitioners’ evidence did not establish materially changed conditions in Indonesia. See Tadevosyan v. Holder, 743 F.3d 1250, 1252-53 (9th Cir. 2014) (the BIA abuses its discretion when it fails to provide a reasoned explanation for its actions). In rejecting petitioners’ claim of materially changed country conditions, the BIA did not refer to any of the thirty-two exhibits submitted in support of the motion, explain why the exhibits did not sufficiently reflect materially changed conditions in Indonesia since 2009 that affected petitioners’ eligibility for relief, or otherwise indicate that it meaningfully considered the evidentiary record. We remand so that the BIA may more thoroughly examine the evidence and explain the rationale behind its decision. See Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 681 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The BIA abuses its discretion when it denies petitioners claim with no indication that it considered all of the evidence and claims presented by the petition.”); Hu v. Holder, 652 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 2011) (remanding where a meaningful review of the agencys decision could not be conducted because the agency failed to provide a reasoned explanation of its decision).

The BIA also abused its discretion in denying the motion to reopen on the ground that petitioners were not prima facie eligible for asylum or withholding of removal, because the BIA failed to address petitioners’ contention regarding their membership in a disfavored group. See Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133, 1140 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]he BIA committed legal error when it failed to analyze Salims individualized threat of persecution in light of his membership in a disfavored group, and instead summarily concluded that Salims evidence addressed only ‘general conditions in Indonesia.’ ”); Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005) (remanding where the BIA failed to address petitioners argument). We remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

The government shall bear the costs for this petition for review.

Petitioners’ removal is stayed pending a decision by the BIA.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED.