Sugiarto v. Holder, Jr.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14774
| 1st Cir. | 2014Background
- Sugiarto, an Indonesian Christian, entered the U.S. on a tourist visa in January 2005, overstayed, and applied for asylum in January 2006.
- An IJ denied asylum, the BIA affirmed, and this Court denied review on the merits in 2009 (Sugiarto v. Holder).
- Nearly four years later, Sugiarto moved to reopen the asylum proceedings with the BIA under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).
- Motions to reopen are disfavored and generally must present new evidence of materiality not available previously.
- Because the motion was filed late, Sugiarto must show changed country conditions in Indonesia under § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) and § 1003.2(c)(3)(iii).
- The Board denied reopening, finding the new evidence largely cumulative and not showing changed conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board abused its discretion in denying reopening for lack of changed conditions | Sugiarto argues Winters affidavit shows new religious persecution trends. | Board found evidence largely cumulative and not showing a material change in conditions. | No abuse of discretion; evidence insufficient for changed conditions |
| Whether late filing barred reopening despite potential changed conditions | Late filing should be excused if there are changed conditions. | Late filing requires showing changed conditions; not satisfied. | Threshold not met; late filing upheld as a bar to relief |
| Whether Winters' affidavit and other evidence demonstrate a new pattern or just persistence of prior conditions | New evidence shows change in country conditions. | Evidence is a continuation of prior conditions or persistent problems. | Not sufficient to constitute changed conditions |
| Whether the Board adequately explained its decision and the court's review standard applied | Board's opinion was cursory and failed to dissect arguments. | Board articulated the record and explained why evidence was insufficient. | Board's explanation adequate; no error in reasoning |
| Whether a pattern or practice of persecution could excuse the failure to show changed conditions | Pattern/practice could negate the need for individualized risk. | Pattern evidence does not excuse failure to show a changed condition threshold. | Even if present, pattern evidence does not cure the threshold deficiency |
Key Cases Cited
- Guerrero-Santana v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 90 (1st Cir. 2007) (motions to reopen disfavored due to finality and expedition goals)
- Raza v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 125 (1st Cir. 2007) (requires material new evidence for reopening)
- Marsadu v. Holder, 748 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2014) (Winters-affidavit akin to mere continuation of prior conditions)
- Lie v. Holder, 729 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2013) (persistence of negative conditions; not enough for changed conditions)
- Ang v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2005) (treatment of derivative beneficiaries in asylum context)