Maikal Ali Halim v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 500 F. App'x 634 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             DEC 11 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    MAIKAL ALI ISKANDAR HALIM,                       No. 11-70759
    Petitioner,                        Agency No. A075-745-174
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Argued and Submitted December 3, 2012
    Seattle, Washington
    Before: SCHROEDER, Senior Circuit Judge, McKEOWN and TALLMAN,
    Circuit Judges.
    Maikal Halim, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen his
    removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (a). We review
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, Feng Gui Lin v.
    Holder, 
    588 F.3d 981
    , 984 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review.
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Halim failed to
    establish an individualized risk of persecution in light of this court’s decision in
    Tampubolon v. Holder, 
    610 F.3d 1056
     (9th Cir. 2010). Halim’s argument that the
    BIA applied the higher withholding of removal standard to his asylum claim fails
    because the BIA was merely explaining the holding in Tampubolon, in which that
    petitioner was time-barred from seeking asylum. See Tampubolon, 
    610 F.3d at 1059
    . In applying the correct standard, the BIA did not err in determining that,
    even as a member of a disfavored group, Halim failed to demonstrate sufficient
    individualized risk of future persecution in Indonesia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 
    558 F.3d 1049
    , 1065 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting that in the asylum context, “some evidence
    of individualized risk is necessary for the petitioner to succeed”). The evidence
    Halim proffered—that he is an active member of his church in the United States
    and that he suffered abuse as a youth—is insufficient to distinguish his risk of
    persecution from the generalized risk felt by all Christians in Indonesia. See
    Lolong v. Gonzales, 
    484 F.3d 1173
    , 1181 (9th Cir. 2007).
    Next, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Halim failed to
    establish materially changed country conditions. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
    
    2 F.3d 983
    , 991(2010). The news articles and reports Halim submitted in support of
    his motion to reopen are not “qualitatively different” from the evidence of the
    difficult conditions for Christians he proffered in his initial application for asylum.
    See Malty v. Ashcroft, 
    381 F.3d 942
    , 946-47 (2004); 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (c)(1) (“A
    motion to reopen proceedings shall state the new facts that will be proven . . . if the
    motion is granted.”) (emphasis added). Although the BIA “did not directly
    reference” any of the articles or reports Halim submitted, “there is nothing to
    suggest it did not consider that evidence in deciding that” Halim failed to establish
    changed conditions in Indonesia. Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 991; see also Lopez v.
    Ashcroft, 
    366 F.3d 799
    , 807 n.6 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[T]he [BIA] does not have to
    write an exegesis on every contention.”).
    Finally, the BIA did not act arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law, by
    declining to take into account evidence of Halim’s child’s developmental
    disabilities, when that evidence went neither to changed country conditions nor to
    Halim's individualized fear of future persecution.
    PETITION DENIED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-70759

Citation Numbers: 500 F. App'x 634

Judges: Schroeder, McKeown, Tallman

Filed Date: 12/11/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024