Case: 13-11058 Date Filed: 10/17/2013 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-11058
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A098-564-173
MASRI SASTRAWAN,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(October 17, 2013)
Before MARCUS, MARTIN and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-11058 Date Filed: 10/17/2013 Page: 2 of 4
Masri Sastrawan, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA’s) denial of his motion to reopen and
reconsider the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). After thorough review, we
deny the petition.
In 2008, Sastrawan filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and CAT relief, alleging that, because he had married a Christian woman and
converted to Christianity, he would be subject to persecution if he returned to
Indonesia. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Sastrawan’s application, finding
that he had not demonstrated he would be persecuted in Indonesia. Sastrawan
appealed to the BIA, which affirmed the IJ’s decision in May 2010.
In September 2012, Sastrawan filed a motion to reopen and motion for
reconsideration, arguing that a change in the law and changed country conditions
in Indonesia warranted a new hearing. The BIA denied Sastrawan’s motions,
finding that his motion to reconsider was untimely and that he failed to
demonstrate changed country conditions necessary to overcome the time limitation
governing motions to reopen. Sastrawan petitions this court for review of that
decision.
Sastrawan first asserts that the BIA should have granted his motion for
reconsideration because two Ninth Circuit cases establish a new legal framework
2
Case: 13-11058 Date Filed: 10/17/2013 Page: 3 of 4
that warrants reconsideration of his application. See Tampubolon v. Holder, 610
F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2010); Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2009). We
review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for an abuse of discretion.
Scheerer v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 513 F.3d 1244, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008). An alien must
file a motion to reconsider “within 30 days of the date of entry of a final
administrative order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C). The BIA issued its
final order of removal in May 2010, and Sastrawan did not move for
reconsideration until September 2012, more than two years later, well after the
deadline for filing a motion for reconsideration. See id. And the cases on which
he relies do not create an exception to the time limit to file a motion for
reconsideration. See generally Tampubolon, 610 F.3d 1056; Wakkary, 558 F.3d
1049. Thus, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Sastrawan’s motion
for reconsideration.
Sastrawan next argues that the BIA erred by refusing to grant his motion to
reopen based on changed country conditions. We review the BIA’s denial of a
motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion, and our review is “limited to
determining whether the BIA exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious
manner.” Zhang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 572 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2009).
Generally, an alien must file a motion to reopen “within 90 days of the date of
entry of a final administrative order.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). But there is
3
Case: 13-11058 Date Filed: 10/17/2013 Page: 4 of 4
no time limitation where the motion is “based on changed country conditions . . . if
such evidence is material and was not available and would not have been
discovered or presented at the previous proceeding. Id. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).
Sastrawan contends that conditions for Christians in Indonesia are worse
than when he was originally ordered removed, as demonstrated by the 2010
International Religious Freedom Report. That report demonstrates that Muslim
groups used violence and intimidation to close churches, that the government has
failed to punish perpetrators of religious violence, and that some areas have
implemented Islamic law. But the 2007 International Religious Freedom Report,
which Sastrawan submitted with his original application, contained reports of
similar incidents. Sastrawan has therefore failed to show that conditions for
Christians in Indonesia have materially worsened. See Jiang v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
568 F.3d 1252, 1256-57 (11th Cir. 2009) (“An alien who attempts to show that the
evidence is material bears a heavy burden and must present evidence that
demonstrates that, if the proceedings were reopened, the new evidence would
likely change the result in the case.”). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its
discretion in denying Sastrawan’s motion to reopen. See Zhang, 572 F.3d at 1319.
PETITION DENIED.
4