Budhijanto Sukirdjan v. William Barr

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 22 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BUDHIJANTO SUKIRDJAN, No. 18-71579
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-203-771
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 20, 2020**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Budhijanto Sukirdjan, a native and citizen of Indonesia, was ordered removed,
and his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture were denied. Several years later, Sukirdjan moved to
reopen his case arguing that the country conditions in Indonesia had materially
*
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).
changed and, as a Chinese Christian, that he faced increased danger given the
presence of extremist groups in the country. The Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”) denied his motion, and he now petitions for review. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion. See Agonafer v.
Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1203 (9th Cir. 2017) (stating the abuse of discretion
standard). Sukirdjan filed his motion after the ninety-day deadline but argued the
time bar did not apply because the motion was based on previously unavailable and
material evidence of changed country conditions. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
The BIA’s determination that Sukirdjan presented evidence demonstrating that
violence against Chinese Christians persisted but did not materially change was not
“arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Agonafer, 859 F.3d at 1203 (internal
quotation marks omitted). Therefore, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny the
motion as untimely.
Because the BIA denied the motion as untimely based on Sukirdjan’s failure
to introduce evidence of materially changed country conditions, the BIA “did not
need to reach the question of whether [Sukirdjan] established a prima facie case for
relief.” Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 991–92 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 18-71579