Case: 20-60448 Document: 00516376112 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 29, 2022 No. 20-60448 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Ek Hong Djie; Yohana Dewi Mulyani, Petitioners, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA Nos. A077 736 992, A077 736 993 Before Davis, Willett, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Andrew S. Oldham, Circuit Judge: Petitioners Ek Hong Djie and Yohana Dewi Mulyani overstayed their permission to visit the United States 20 years ago, and they’ve been here ever since. For the second time after they were ordered removed, they asked the Board of Immigration Appeals to reopen their removal proceedings. For the second time, the Board refused. A statute bars the relief these petitioners seek. So we deny their petition. Case: 20-60448 Document: 00516376112 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/29/2022 No. 20-60448 I. Petitioners are married to each other. Both are ethnically Chinese, both are Christians, and both were born in Indonesia. They entered the United States in 1998 with temporary, non-immigrant authorization. Then they overstayed that authorization. In 2000, the Department of Homeland Security served petitioners with Notices to Appear (collectively, “the NTA”), charging them with removability. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(C)(i). The NTA did not list the date and time of the scheduled removal hearing. But the Government soon provided petitioners’ lawyer with that information. On May 8, 2000, when petitioners failed to appear at the removal hearing, an immigration judge (“IJ”) ordered them removed in absentia. The Government never removed them. In 2007, petitioners filed a motion to reopen their removal proceedings, arguing the NTA was inadequate. Cf. INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 96–103 (1988) (giving a broad discussion of motions to reopen). An IJ denied that motion, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed petitioners’ appeal from the IJ’s denial. They petitioned this court for review of the BIA’s dismissal, and we denied the petition in part and dismissed it in part. See Djie v. Holder, 310 F. App’x 720, 721–22 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). In 2018, petitioners moved the BIA (directly this time, not via an IJ) to reopen their removal proceedings. As for substantive relief, they sought asylum and cancellation of removal. Because their motion would ordinarily be time-barred, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), petitioners had to show country conditions in Indonesia had materially changed in the interval between 2000 (the time of the removal order) and 2018 (the time of the motion to reopen), see id. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). Petitioners made that 2 Case: 20-60448 Document: 00516376112 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/29/2022 No. 20-60448 argument. And in support, they submitted 33 news articles as well as other pieces of evidence. Petitioners further argued they satisfied all four statutory requirements for cancellation of removal. See id. § 1229b(b)(1). And they argued the NTA was insufficient because it didn’t specify the time and date of their removal …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals