Simarmata v. Holder, Jr.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8845
1st Cir.2014Background
- Petitioner David Edison Simarmata, an Indonesian Christian, conceded removability after overstaying a tourist visa and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Simarmata credible but denied asylum as untimely and denied withholding/CAT relief for failure to show past persecution or individualized risk; BIA dismissed the appeal in 2012 and Simarmata did not seek judicial review of that decision.
- In December 2012 Simarmata filed an untimely motion to reopen based on changed country conditions in Indonesia, submitting an affidavit from Prof. Jeffrey A. Winters and other evidence.
- The BIA denied the motion, concluding the new evidence described general deterioration for religious minorities and did not show a change in country conditions or an individualized risk sufficient to excuse untimeliness under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
- Simarmata petitioned for review, arguing the BIA’s decision was cursory and that Winters’s affidavit demonstrated previously unavailable, changed conditions creating individualized risk.
- The First Circuit reviews motions to reopen for abuse of discretion and requires new, material evidence plus a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief; it denied Simarmata’s petition.
Issues
| Issue | Simarmata's Argument | Government/BIA Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BIA abused its discretion in denying an untimely motion to reopen based on changed country conditions | Winters affidavit and other documents show changed, deteriorating conditions for Christians in Indonesia and were previously unavailable, excusing untimeliness | Evidence was general, described conditions that existed before the IJ decision, and failed to show individualized risk or a change sufficient to excuse untimeliness | Denied — BIA did not abuse discretion; evidence was generalized and did not establish changed conditions or individualized risk |
| Whether the BIA’s concise explanation was impermissibly cursory | BIA failed to meaningfully evaluate the Winters affidavit | A concise decision is not automatically cursory; BIA provided adequate reasons linking evidence to regulatory standard | Denied — Court found the BIA’s concise reasoning sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Beltre-Veloz v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2008) (standard of review for motions to reopen)
- Chen v. Holder, 675 F.3d 100 (1st Cir. 2012) (disfavoring motions to reopen due to finality and efficiency concerns)
- Guerrero-Santana v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 90 (1st Cir. 2007) (same principle on finality and expeditious processing)
- Jutus v. Holder, 723 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 2013) (requirement to introduce new, material evidence and prima facie eligibility)
- Lie v. Holder, 729 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2013) (similar treatment of generalized expert affidavits about Indonesia)
- Wu v. Holder, 737 F.3d 829 (1st Cir. 2013) (requiring linkage between country-condition reports and petitioner’s individualized risk)
- Tanzil v. Att’y Gen., 426 F. App’x 104 (3d Cir. 2011) (rejecting substantially similar generalized affidavit about persecution of Christians in Indonesia)