Djokro v. Garland, 102 F.4th 39

Hartono Djokro and his son, William, Indonesian citizens of Chinese ethnicity and Catholic faith, overstayed their U.S. visas and sought asylum and related relief, claiming fear of persecution in Indonesia.
Their initial asylum applications were denied by the Immigration Judge (IJ) in 2009 due to failure to prove past persecution, eligibility for withholding, or a pattern of persecution against Chinese Christians.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision in 2012, denied their motions for reconsideration and two subsequent motions to reopen, finding them untimely and lacking evidence of changed country conditions.
Petitioners' 2021 second motion to reopen (and 2023 supplement) alleged worsened conditions for Christians in Indonesia, but the BIA found their evidence either outdated or not materially different from the evidence considered previously.
The BIA also rejected petitioners' reliance on unpublished BIA decisions and the case Sihotang v. Sessions, distinguishing their circumstances from those involving increased risk due to public proselytizing or unique individual threats.
The court denied the petition for review, concluding the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying reopening for lack of material changed country conditions.

Issue	Djokro's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Exception to motion reopening limits for changed country conditions	Conditions for Christians in Indonesia have deteriorated	Petitioners failed to show material change from the 2009 record	BIA reasonably found no material change in conditions; motion properly denied as untimely and number-barred
Weight and recency of evidence	BIA disregarded/discounted evidence of recent developments	Evidence was outdated or cumulative and did not show new risks	BIA appropriately weighed evidence, favoring current data; no abuse of discretion in its evaluation
Relevance of unpublished BIA decisions & Sihotang v. Sessions	These cases demonstrate changed conditions or risk	Distinguishable facts; unpublished cases not precedential or factually similar	BIA distinguished unpublished decisions and Sihotang; these did not require a different outcome
Government response to religious violence	Government unwilling/unable to protect Christians	Indonesian government actively prosecutes and counters religious violence	BIA credited evidence of government responsiveness; no proof of state complicity or inability to protect respondents as required for relief

Molina v. Barr, 952 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2020) (affirmed BIA's discretion in denying motions to reopen absent showing of changed country conditions)
Marsadu v. Holder, 748 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2014) (court defers to BIA's evaluation of evidence in motions to reopen)
Sihotang v. Sessions, 900 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 2018) (motion to reopen granted where the BIA failed to consider unique risks to evangelical Christians)
Raza v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 125 (1st Cir. 2007) (standard of review for motions to reopen is abuse of discretion)
Twum v. Barr, 930 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2019) (motion to reopen must show a prima facie case for relief)
Xin Qiang Liu v. Lynch, 802 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2015) (general country conditions must be tied to individualized risk)