Gunawan Liem v. Attorney General United States
921 F.3d 388
| 3rd Cir. | 2019Background
- Petitioner Gunawan Liem, an Indonesian national, ethnically Chinese and a practicing Seventh-Day Adventist, entered the U.S. on a short visa in 1999, overstayed, and later applied for asylum/withholding/CAT in 2003; IJ denied asylum (untimely) but granted withholding, which the BIA vacated and ordered removal in a 2006 decision Liem did not directly appeal.
- Liem filed a first motion to reopen after 2006; BIA denied it and this Court previously declined review of that denial on jurisdictional grounds in 2008.
- In 2018 ICE arrested Liem; he filed a second motion to reopen claiming materially changed country conditions in Indonesia for Chinese Christians (citing numerous exhibits about rising religious/ethnic intolerance, blasphemy prosecutions, Sharia local laws, caning of non-Muslims, and the Ahok blasphemy case).
- The BIA issued a one-member opinion denying the 2018 motion as untimely/number-barred, finding the evidence showed long‑standing problems rather than material change and citing a handful of exhibits without detailed analysis.
- The Third Circuit reviewed the BIA’s denial for abuse of discretion, held the BIA failed to meaningfully consider or explain rejection of关键 evidence (including exhibits it cited and most exhibits it did not cite), and concluded the BIA’s opinion was superficial and arbitrary.
- Court vacated the BIA’s denial and remanded for the BIA to meaningfully consider all country‑conditions evidence; it did not decide whether Liem met the substantive burden for reopening or withholding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Liem) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA abused discretion by denying untimely/number-barred motion to reopen based on lack of material change in country conditions | Liem argued evidence (2015–2018 reports, news, NGO reports) shows material deterioration for Chinese Christians since his 2003 hearing, including increased blasphemy prosecutions, caning of non‑Muslims, and mainstreaming of Islamist groups | Government argued conditions are longstanding, periodic, and not materially different from pre‑2003 conditions; distinguished Sihotang and emphasized Liem did not claim evangelical proselytizing status | Court held BIA abused its discretion: it failed to meaningfully consider and explain rejection of substantial evidence suggesting material change and remanded |
| Whether BIA met duty to analyze and explain consideration of country‑conditions evidence | Liem argued BIA must explicitly address evidence materially bearing on his claim and explain rejections | Government contended BIA’s brief reasoning sufficed and that many exhibits did not show material change | Court held BIA’s cursory opinion, selective citation, and omission of most exhibits violated precedent requiring meaningful consideration and explanation |
| Relevance of First Circuit’s Sihotang decision | Liem relied on Sihotang for proposition that recent deterioration (2014–2017) can be material and BIA must consider distinctions among Christian practices | Government sought to limit Sihotang to evangelical‑proselytizing context | Court found Sihotang persuasive on country‑wide deterioration for Christians and noted Liem’s role as a church deacon may involve public practice, making Sihotang relevant |
| Whether court should reach substantive withholding/CAT claims on remand | Liem argued prima facie withholding case exists | Government argued merits were for BIA | Held: Court did not decide merits; remanded for BIA to reexamine evidence first |
Key Cases Cited
- Sihotang v. Sessions, 900 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 2018) (vacated BIA denial for superficial analysis of changed country conditions affecting Indonesian Christians)
- Zhu v. Attorney General, 744 F.3d 268 (3d Cir. 2014) (BIA must meaningfully consider and explain treatment of evidence in motions to reopen)
- Zheng v. Attorney General, 549 F.3d 260 (3d Cir. 2008) (heightened duty to explicitly consider country‑conditions evidence in reopening motions)
- Guo v. Gonzales, 463 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2006) (BIA’s duty to address materially relevant country‑conditions evidence)
- Ni v. Holder, 715 F.3d 620 (7th Cir. 2013) (BIA must explain why portions of reports are persuasive or not)
- Sevoian v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 166 (3d Cir. 2002) (substantial evidence standard for agency factual findings)
- Zheng v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 98 (3d Cir. 2005) (agency must adequately articulate reasons for decisions)