NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 6 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LIAN BIE LIM and RYANDI SISWOJO, No. 18-71711 Petitioners, Agency Nos. A098-131-042, A098-131-043 v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 11, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: TASHIMA and LEE, Circuit Judges, and CARDONE,*** District Judge. Petitioners Lian Bie Lim and Ryandi Siswojo, citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying * 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). *** The Honorable Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation. their motion to reopen their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “We review denials of motions to reopen for abuse of discretion, and defer to the BIA’s exercise of discretion unless it acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law.” Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). The BIA’s determination of purely legal questions is reviewed de novo and its factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. Id. We deny the petition for review. 1. The BIA did not err in concluding that Petitioners’ evidence failed to make out a prima facie case for asylum relief. On a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions, the movant must produce previously unavailable, material evidence of changed conditions in the country of removal. Agonafer v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1204 (9th Cir. 2017). This evidence must, when considered with the movant’s original evidence, establish prima facie eligibility for relief. Id. As Christian, ethnically Chinese Indonesians, Petitioners are members of two disfavored groups. See Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133, 1140 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056, 1058 (9th Cir. 2010)) (stating that Indonesian Christians are a disfavored group); Tampubolon, 610 F.3d at 1060 (citing Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir. 2004)) (stating that Chinese Indonesians are a disfavored group). This means that, to set out a prima facie case 2 for asylum relief, Petitioners must present some evidence that they face an individualized risk of harm if they return to Indonesia. See Tampubolon, 610 F.3d at 1062. Evidence of past threats and violence on the basis of a movant’s membership in a disfavored group can establish this individualized risk, even if these experiences fell short of persecution. Sael, 386 F.3d at 927. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioners have not presented evidence of relevant past threats and persecution. At their original hearing, Petitioners described three events that convinced them to leave Indonesia: an incident where …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals