Ali Hendaoui v. Merrick Garland, 19-72873

Ali Hendaoui, a Tunisian national, was ordered removed and petitioned for review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen.
He sought to reopen based on changed country conditions in Tunisia (risk to atheists) and alleged prior ineffective assistance of counsel.
Evidence offered: Facebook printouts showing two anti-religion statements and membership/likes for an "Atheists United" group; testimony about receiving online death threats (threats not entered into evidence); an expert report describing country conditions.
The Immigration Judge and BIA had jurisdiction; the panel held Pereira and Niz-Chavez did not change jurisdictional analysis because the stop-time rule and §1229(a) notice issues were not controlling here and the NTA at issue said hearing date "To Be Set."
The BIA found Hendaoui failed to show a nexus between country conditions and his particular circumstances (only a general group-based claim), and it gave limited weight to the expert report as inconsistent with other record materials.
The BIA also denied relief on the ineffective-assistance claim because Hendaoui’s moving papers (which would define his case on remand) did not establish a prima facie entitlement to relief; the Ninth Circuit denied the petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction of IJ/BIA	Pereira/Niz-Chavez undermine court’s jurisdiction here	Jurisdiction governed by immigration regulations; NTA saying "To Be Set" vests jurisdiction	Court: IJ/BIA had jurisdiction; Pereira/Niz-Chavez not controlling
Changed country conditions / nexus	Tunisia persecutes atheists; Hendaoui’s Facebook activity and threats show he’d be targeted	Evidence shows only general risk to atheists; Hendaoui not shown to be an activist or particularized target	Court: BIA reasonably found no nexus; denied reopening
Weight of evidence / expert report	Expert report supports likelihood of persecution/torture	Expert opinion undermined by record, news, and State Dept. report	Court: BIA reasonably discounted expert as inconsistent with other evidence
Ineffective assistance of counsel / remand	If counsel ineffective, remand required to consider asylum/CAT/withholding	Hendaoui’s moving papers already show no prima facie case; remand would be futile	Court: No remand; ineffective-assistance claim fails

Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (Sup. Ct. 2018) (addressing notice-to-appear/stop-time rule issues)
Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (Sup. Ct. 2021) (clarifying notice-to-appear statutory requirements)
Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2019) (regulations—not §1229(a)—control Immigration Court jurisdiction when NTA says hearing date "To Be Set")
Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2016) (motion to reopen on changed country conditions must show reasonable likelihood of meeting asylum/withholding statutory requirements)
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized group threat insufficient without nexus to particularized circumstances)
Garland v. Dai, 141 S. Ct. 1669 (Sup. Ct. 2021) (abrogating rule requiring courts to assume truth of testimony absent explicit adverse-credibility finding)
Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762 (9th Cir. 2011) (BIA must give reasoned consideration to highly probative evidence)
Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (expert opinions may be discounted if undermined by other record evidence)
Ray v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 582 (9th Cir. 2006) (ineffective assistance can warrant remand if movant shows prejudice/prima facie entitlement)
Singh v. Barr, 935 F.3d 822 (9th Cir. 2019) (no remand when it would be an idle and useless formality)
Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744 (9th Cir. 2009) (standards of review for BIA motions to reopen)