NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 3 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LIANY ADLIM, No. 20-70321 Petitioner, Agency No. A089-884-196 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 16, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: BRESS and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and GLEASON,*** District Judge. Liany Adlim, a citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying her untimely motion to reopen her * 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 Sharon L. Gleason, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation. immigration proceedings. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion and may grant relief only if the BIA’s decision was “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Agonafer v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1203 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002)). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. 1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Adlim’s untimely motion to reopen. An untimely motion to reopen may be allowed if it is “based on changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality or in the country to which deportation has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). However, even if a movant demonstrates changed country conditions, her removal proceedings will not be reopened unless she also demonstrates prima facie eligibility for some form of relief in light of those changed conditions. See Garcia v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 2010). Here, the BIA found that even assuming that conditions for ethnically Chinese Christians in Indonesia had worsened, Adlim failed to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). To establish prima facie eligibility for asylum, Adlim needed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground, 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b), and for withholding of removal, she needed to demonstrate that such 2 persecution was more likely than not to occur, 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(2). The BIA found that Adlim failed to establish the requisite likelihood of persecution for asylum or withholding of removal, even under a disfavored group analysis, because the Immigration Judge (IJ) discredited Adlim’s testimony regarding past persecution during her initial removal proceedings and Adlim did not “report[] any individualized threat of harm upon her repatriation.” See 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.13(b)(2)(iii), 208.16(b)(2) (providing that applicants for asylum or withholding generally must demonstrate that they will be “singled out individually” for persecution). Adlim …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals