FNU Mulyadi v. U.S. Attorney General
708 F. App'x 639
| 11th Cir. | 2018Background
- Petitioner Fnu Mulyadi, an Indonesian national ordered removed in 2009, filed a third motion to reopen immigration removal proceedings.
- Mulyadi acknowledged the motion was both time-barred (filed after the 90-day limit) and number-barred (more than one prior motion).
- He argued an exception to the time/number limits applied because country conditions had materially changed for Christians of Chinese ethnicity in Indonesia since 2009.
- Submitted evidence included reports of terrorist attacks in Jakarta (2016) and imposition of Sharia in Aceh province.
- The BIA compared the new evidence to prior submissions and concluded the evidence did not show material change relevant to Mulyadi (attacks were not shown to target Chinese Christians; Aceh conditions were not applicable to his circumstances).
- The court reviewed the BIA’s denial for abuse of discretion and denied Mulyadi’s petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exception to time/number bars applies due to changed country conditions | Mulyadi: conditions for Chinese Christians in Indonesia have materially worsened (rise of radical Islam, targeted violence). | BIA: submitted evidence does not show material, previously unavailable change relevant to Mulyadi. | Held: No; BIA reasonably found no material change since 2009. |
| Whether new evidence was materially different from prior submissions | Mulyadi: new reports (2016 attacks, Aceh Sharia) demonstrate new risks. | BIA: similar attacks existed earlier; reports do not show targeting of Chinese Christians; Aceh is not his home/prospective residence. | Held: New evidence not sufficiently material or distinctive. |
| Whether BIA abused its discretion in denying motion to reopen | Mulyadi: denial was arbitrary/capricious given changed conditions. | BIA: exercised discretion reasonably after comparing records. | Held: No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed. |
| Whether relief should be granted as favorable exercise of discretion despite statutory eligibility | Mulyadi: requested reopening for protection based on country conditions. | BIA: even if eligible, discretionary reopening not warranted based on record. | Held: BIA properly exercised discretion to deny reopening. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jiang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 568 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for BIA denial of motion to reopen)
- Ali v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 443 F.3d 804 (11th Cir. 2006) (movant bears heavy burden; motions to reopen disfavored)
- INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314 (1992) (motions to reopen are disfavored in removal proceedings)
- Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2001) (grounds on which BIA may deny a motion to reopen)