NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 8 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BIJAN PRASAD; MANJULA DEVI No. 08-72706 PRASAD; AMIT AVINASH PRASAD; AVIKASH AVINASH PRASAD, Agency Nos. A073-419-397 A073-419-398 Petitioners, A073-419-399 A073-419-400 v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 4, 2020** Anchorage, Alaska Before: CHRISTEN, WATFORD, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Bijan Prasad, his wife Manjula Prasad, and their two children, who are natives and citizens of Fiji of Indian descent, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA’s”) denial of their motion to reopen * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). asserting changed country conditions based on a May 2000 military coup. We deny the petition for review. Petitioners claim they were persecuted in Fiji because of their Indo-Fijian ethnicity. Petitioners asserted that on two separate occasions Manjula was assaulted by ethnic Fijians when she was working at the family-owned store. A group of landowners attacked Prasad and his brother at the brother’s business when they refused to pay the landowners additional money for using their land. In addition, ethnic Fijians attacked and stole money from Bijan’s and Manjula’s children. And ethnic Fijians burned Petitioners’ Hindu temple, destroyed their religious decorations, and vandalized their car. An immigration judge (“IJ”) credited Bijan’s and Manjula’s testimony but denied their applications, reasoning that none of the incidents rose to the level of persecution based upon a protected ground. The BIA affirmed. The BIA subsequently granted Petitioners’ motion to reopen under the regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and remanded to the IJ to provide Petitioners the opportunity to apply for protection under CAT. During the remanded proceeding, Petitioners requested to reopen to reapply for asylum and withholding based on a May 2000 “racial coup” led by George Speight. Petitioners did not file a written motion to reopen, but they submitted the Department of State’s Country Report on Human Rights Practices-2000, and the 2 government submitted the 2002 report. The IJ denied the request to reopen as outside the scope of the remand. The IJ also noted that the leader of the 2000 coup and several of his followers had been arrested and sentenced. The BIA denied review, agreeing that the motion to reopen was beyond the scope of the remand and that Petitioners had not shown that the 2000 coup was materially related to their claim of future persecution. Petitioners petitioned this court for review. While the petition for review was pending in this court, the BIA issued Matter of M-D-, holding that “when a case is remanded to an [IJ] for the appropriate background checks pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(h), the [IJ] reacquires jurisdiction over the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals