NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 20-1340 ____________ TJOO KIAT NG, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________ On Petition for Review from an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board No. A095-432-666) Immigration Judge: Charles M. Honeyman ____________ Argued October 2, 2020 Before: SHWARTZ, PHIPPS, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. (Filed: November 12, 2020) ____________ OPINION* ____________ Christopher M. Casazza [ARGUED] Palladino, Isbell & Casazza 1528 Walnut Street, Suite 1701 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Counsel for Petitioner * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant Attorney General Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director Joseph D. Hardy, Jr., Trial Attorney [ARGUED] Neelam Ihsanullah Anthony C. Payne United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Counsel for Respondent FISHER, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Tjoo Kiat Ng, a native and citizen of Indonesia and an ethnically Chinese Catholic, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his motion to reopen his immigration proceedings, in which he was found removable to Indonesia. Because the BIA denied Ng’s motion for failing to make a prima facie case (and not for a purely discretionary reason) yet failed to meaningfully engage with the record and explain its reasons for rejecting Ng’s evidence of changed country conditions, and because its decision contravenes Liem v. Attorney General, 921 F.3d 388 (3d Cir. 2019), we will grant the petition for review, vacate the BIA’s order, and remand for full consideration of the evidence.1 A motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days after the entry of a final order of 1 The BIA had jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). We have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Ng’s motion to reopen under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We review the denial for an abuse of discretion; however, “questions of law, such as whether the BIA applied the correct legal standard in considering the motion to reopen . . . , are . . . reviewed de novo.” Fadiga v. Att’y Gen., 488 F.3d 142, 153-54 (3d Cir. 2007). 2 removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). However, this deadline does not apply “where a petitioner moves ‘[t]o apply or reapply for asylum or withholding of deportation based on changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality . . . if such evidence is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing.’” Liem, 921 F.3d at 395 (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii)). Invoking this exception, Ng argues that, in denying his motion, the BIA (i) abused its discretion by failing to meaningfully consider the evidence, (ii) erred in distinguishing Liem and Sihotang v. Sessions, 900 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 2018) on the basis that Ng is Catholic, and (iii) applied an improper standard. Ng’s first two arguments are well-founded and necessitate ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals