Marsadu v. Holder, Jr.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6281
| 1st Cir. | 2014Background
- Marsadu and Rondonuwu, Indonesian Christians, married with two U.S.-born children.
- Petitioners sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief in 2003; DHS later started removal actions.
- IJ denied all relief in 2007; BIA affirmed in 2009; petition for review denied in 2009.
- Petitioners filed an untimely motion to reopen in 2012 based on changed Indonesian conditions with Dr. Winters’ affidavit.
- BIA denied the motion to reopen in 2012 for lack of a material change and failure to show prima facie asylum eligibility.
- Court reviews BIA denial of motion to reopen for abuse of discretion and substantial evidence support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA correctly found no prima facie asylum case remained. | Marsadu/Rondonuwu contend changed conditions create asylum risk. | BIA properly weighed evidence and required prima facie asylum showing. | No reversible error; petition denied. |
| Whether evidence shows a change in country conditions sufficient for reopening. | Petitioners show intensified violence against Christians post-2007. | Evidence shows mere continuation, not intensification. | Not sufficient to warrant reopening. |
| Whether BIA required individualized risk or could rely on pattern of persecution. | Petitioners need not show individualized risk if pattern exists. | BIA correctly required either individualized risk or pattern of persecution. | BIA properly found no individualized risk and no pattern. |
| Whether Decky v. Holder was wrongly applied to 2012 Indonesian conditions. | Decky outdated; not relevant to 2012. | Decky cited as example of lack of pattern of persecution. | Citation did not constitute legal error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tawadrous v. Holder, 565 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2009) (denial of motion to reopen reviewed for legal error or arbitrary decision; substantial evidence standard applied)
- Tandayu v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 97 (1st Cir. 2008) (two-threshold framework for motions to reopen; changed circumstances standard)
- Fesseha v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2003) (two threshold requirements: prima facie case and new material evidence)
- Decky v. Holder, 587 F.3d 104 (1st Cir. 2009) (pattern or practice of persecution not shown; cited as example)
- Rasiah v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2009) (pattern or practice standard requires widespread persecution)
- Kho v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2007) (individualized risk or pattern analysis for asylum)
- Le Bin Zhu v. Holder, 622 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2010) (discretionary breadth of BIA on motions to reopen)
- Li Sheng Wu v. Holder, 737 F.3d 829 (1st Cir. 2013) (well-founded fear; subjective and objective components)
- Méndez-Barrera v. Holder, 602 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2010) (BIA discretion in weighing evidence)