FNU Mulyadi v. U.S. Attorney General

Case: 17-10469 Date Filed: 01/10/2018 Page: 1 of 4 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-10469 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A097-192-099 FNU MULYADI, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (January 10, 2018) Before MARCUS, WILSON and JORDAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Fnu Mulyadi, a native and citizen of Indonesia who was ordered removed from the United States in 2009, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Case: 17-10469 Date Filed: 01/10/2018 Page: 2 of 4 Appeal’s (“BIA”) denial of his third motion to reopen removal proceedings. Mulyadi, who acknowledges that his motion to reopen was both number and time- barred, argues that the BIA should have granted his motion pursuant to an exception to those bars because conditions for Christians of Chinese ethnicity in Indonesia have materially changed since he was ordered removed in 2009. Specifically, Mulyadi contends that radical Islam is on the rise in Indonesia, and, as a result, Christians of Chinese ethnicity in Indonesia face violence and other forms of abuse. After thorough review, we deny the petition. We review the denial of a motion to reopen an immigration petition for abuse of discretion. Jiang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 568 F.3d 1252, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009). “Our review is limited to determining whether the BIA exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” Id. The moving party bears a heavy burden, Ali v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 443 F.3d 804, 813 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam), since motions to reopen are disfavored, especially in removal proceedings. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992); Jiang, 568 F.3d at 1256. A party may only file one motion to reopen removal proceedings. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). That motion “shall state the new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted, and shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B). A “motion to reopen shall be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final 2 Case: 17-10469 Date Filed: 01/10/2018 Page: 3 of 4 administrative order of removal,” subject to certain exceptions. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). However, the time and number limitations do not apply if the motion to reopen is “based on changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). We’ve held that, at a minimum, the BIA may deny a motion to reopen on the following three grounds: (1) failure to establish a prima facie case; (2) failure to introduce evidence that was material and previously unavailable; or (3) a determination that an alien is not entitled to a favorable exercise of discretion despite statutory eligibility for ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals