NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 26 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS LILIK AJU LINDAWATI; FOFU No. 18-71689 TJOENG, Agency Nos. A075-758-507 Petitioners, A075-758-508 v. MEMORANDUM* MONTY WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted December 9, 2020 Pasadena, California Before: BEA, THAPAR,** and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge COLLINS Petitioners Lilik Lindawati and Fofu Tjoeng seek review of the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of their motion to reopen due to their failure * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Amul R. Thapar, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. to establish changed country conditions and prima facie eligibility for relief. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to review denials of motions to reopen. We review denials of motions to reopen for abuse of discretion, “although [de novo] review applies to the BIA’s determination of purely legal questions.” Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). Factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. Sharma v. INS, 89 F.3d 545, 547 (9th Cir. 1996). We deny the petition. Because Petitioners’ motion is based on changed country conditions, there is no time limit within which they must have filed it. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). In addition to establishing changed country conditions, Petitioners must also establish prima facie eligibility for relief. INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104 (1988). Here, Petitioners’ original asylum application, adjudicated in 2003, was based on their claim of mistreatment by Muslims. The evidence included acts of violence against Chinese Christians, including a 1998 murder, anti-Christian massacre, and church burning, and a 2000 bombing. Petitioners’ evidence in support of this motion describes the rise of ISIS in Indonesia since 2003 and the threat to Christians there, in particular the existence of an Indonesian ISIS chapter, the increased visibility of ISIS supporters, the increase in terrorism due to ISIS 2 involvement, how local Islamic terrorism has been “eclipsed” by ISIS, and a series of January 2016 attacks in Indonesia by ISIS-affiliated terrorists. The BIA held that while Petitioners’ evidence documented “the plight of the vast, minority Christian population in Indonesia, the evidence proffered does not meaningfully reflect materially changed country conditions in Indonesia.” A continuation of the same type of violence may constitute changed conditions where that violence has intensified or increased. Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2016). However, the numerous violent incidents described by Petitioners in their original asylum application provided the BIA with substantial evidence to conclude that conditions had not changed between 2003 and 2017. Thus, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioners failed to establish changed country conditions. Petitioners also did not submit sufficient evidence of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals