Cipto Chandra v. Eric Holder, Jr.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8823
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Chandra, Indonesian citizen of Chinese descent, entered the U.S. in 1998 and was order removal final in 2005 after asylum proceedings were denied in 2002.
- He remained in the U.S. after removal and converted to Christianity, regularly attending church.
- In 2009, Chandra filed an untimely motion to reopen based on changed country conditions in Indonesia affecting Christians, supported by State Department reports, news articles, a travel warning, and church testimony.
- The BIA denied the motion in December 2009, citing 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(iii)(2) that changes in the respondent’s U.S. personal circumstances do not constitute changed circumstances.
- This court reviews BIA decisions with an abuse-of-discretion standard for factual/administrative rulings and de novo for purely legal questions.
- The court held that the changed-conditions exception can apply where country conditions have worsened and are relevant to the petitioner’s personal circumstances, and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can untimely motions be based on changed country conditions linked to personal conversion? | Chandra's conversion makes country conditions relevant to persecution of Christians in Indonesia. | Changed country conditions must be independent of personal changes and the regulation requires separate evidence of country conditions. | Untimely motion may qualify under changed-conditions exception. |
| Did the BIA abuse discretion by not considering the evidence of worsened Christian persecution? | BIA failed to assess substantial evidence showing worsening conditions. | BIA appropriately exercised discretion; evidence considered to the extent required. | BIA abused discretion by failing to assess the evidence. |
| Did the post-removal conversion bar the untimely motion under the changed-conditions rule? | Conversion should not automatically defeat the changed-conditions analysis. | Personal changes could negate eligibility under the rule. | Legal error to treat conversion as per se barrier; analysis allowed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (2010) (motions to reopen reviewed with abuse-of-discretion standard; safeguard against improper delay)
- Mejia v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2002) (BIA must consider evidence; failure constitutes abuse of discretion)
- Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2008) (BIA must weigh all relevant factors in ruling on a motion to reopen)
- He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2007) (changed personal circumstances alone insufficient; context matters)
- Shu Han Liu v. Holder, 718 F.3d 706 (7th Cir. 2013) (changed country conditions may prevail where personal changes heighten risk)
- En Gao v. Holder, 721 F.3d 893 (7th Cir. 2013) (recognizes viability of changed-conditions theory with personal changes)
- Yu Yun Zhang v. Holder, 702 F.3d 878 (6th Cir. 2012) (personal conversion can be considered with changed country conditions)
- Jiang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 568 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2009) (post-removal personal changes do not bar consideration of country conditions)
- Ming Chen v. Holder, 722 F.3d 63 (1st Cir. 2013) (illustrates framework for changed conditions analysis tied to personal changes)