Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
8-23-2007
Estrada v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-2737
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Estrada v. Atty Gen USA" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 548.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/548
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 06-2737
ERIK ESTRADA;
IVANA CATHERINE LEON SANTOSO,
Petitioners,
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent
__________________
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(Agency No. A96-266-943; 944)
__________________
Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
on July 13, 2007
Before: SLOVITER, ALDISERT and ROTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: August 23, 2007)
OPINION
ROTH, Circuit Judge:
Erik Estrada and Ivana Santoso, husband and wife, petition this Court for review of
the April 20, 2006 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board), in which
the Board denied Petitioners’ motion to reopen removal proceedings based upon changed
country conditions. Because we find that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
Petitioners’ motion, which proffered new evidence that was essentially cumulative of the
evidence originally presented, we will deny the petition for review.
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioners are citizens and natives of Indonesia. They entered the United States
legally but overstayed their visas. Estrada timely applied for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. He named his wife as a derivative
applicant. (She was ineligible to apply in her own right, having missed the filing deadline.)
Estrada alleged past persecution and fear of future persecution based on his Chinese ethnicity
and Christian faith. On February 13, 2004, an immigration judge (IJ) in Philadelphia
conducted a full merits hearing. Estrada presented evidence of hostility toward and violence
against Christians and Chinese by Muslims in Indonesia. This evidence included U.S. State
Department reports on human rights and religious freedom in Indonesia from 2002 and 2003,
as well as various other related articles. After the hearing, the IJ issued an oral decision
denying Estrada’s requests for relief from removal. This denial necessarily foreclosed
Santoso’s requests as well, although she was granted voluntary departure. Petitioners
2
appealed the IJ’s decision. On August 3, 2005, the BIA adopted the IJ’s reasoning and
dismissed Petitioners’ appeal.
Estrada and Santoso did not petition this Court for review of the BIA’s August 3rd
decision. Rather, on March 15, 2006, Petitioners filed a motion to reopen under 8 C.F.R. §
1003.2(c). The new evidence attached to Petitioners’ motion to reopen included affidavits
by Petitioners, the State Department reports that were already part of the administrative
record before the IJ, various articles dated before the merits hearing on February 13, 2004,
a State Department Travel Warning for Indonesia from 2004, State Department reports on
religious freedom in Indonesia from 2004 and 2005, and numerous articles post-dating the
February 13th merits hearing. Petitioners argued that this evidence demonstrated changed
country conditions, specifically the growing concern related to the influence of Muslim
extremists in Indonesia. On April 20, 2006, the BIA denied Petitioners’ motion to reopen
based on its determinations that Petitioners failed to demonstrate (1) sufficient changed
circumstances in Indonesia, or (2) that the new evidence would likely change the outcome
of their case. This timely petition for review followed.
II. DISCUSSION
The BIA had jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c). This Court has jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of
discretion. Fadiga v. Att’y Gen., 488 F.3d 142, 153 (3d Cir. 2007). The Board’s decision
must be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Sevoian v. Ashcroft, 290
3
F.3d 166, 175 (3d Cir. 2002). Thus, our review is “highly deferential.” Guo v. Ashcroft, 386
F.3d 556, 562 (3d Cir. 2004). Generally, motions to reopen are granted only under
“compelling circumstances,” id. at 561, as such motions are “disfavored.” INS v. Doherty,
502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992).
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C), which generally requires a motion to reopen to be
filed within 90 days of the final administrative order, Petitioners’ March 15, 2006 motion
was untimely as it was filed more than 90 days after the Board’s August 3, 2005 order of
removal. However, under the “changed circumstances” exception of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2),
a motion to reopen may be filed at anytime if it is based on evidence of “changed country
conditions arising in the country of nationality” that “is material and was not available and
could not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing.” 8 C.F.R. §
1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Even if the changed circumstances exception is met, the BIA ordinarily will
not consider a discretionary motion to reopen unless the moving party meets the “heavy
burden” of demonstrating that the newly proffered evidence “would likely change the result
of the case.” Matter of Coelho, 20 I.&N. Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (citing Doherty, 502
U.S. at 323); see also Guo, 386 F.3d at 563 (movant seeking reopening of removal
proceedings must “produce objective evidence showing a reasonable likelihood that he can
establish that he is entitled to relief”) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
The BIA properly disregarded the documents attached to Petitioners’ motion to reopen
that pre-dated February 13, 2004, the date of the merits hearing before the IJ, as that evidence
4
was previously available and could have been presented at the previous hearing. The Board
did consider the evidence that post-dated the merits hearing, but concluded that it did “not
demonstrate[] eligibility for any of the [changed circumstances] exceptions . . . including the
subsection (c)(3)(ii) exception” for changed country conditions. The Board did not abuse its
discretion in so concluding. The material which postdated the merits hearing was essentially
cumulative of the evidence presented to the IJ and merely reinforced Estrada’s original
claims for relief. Because the newly proffered evidence was neither material nor novel, it
failed to meet the requirements of the “changed circumstances” exception of 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2). See also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).
The BIA also considered whether Estrada had met his “heavy evidentiary burden”
under Coelho, 20 I.&N. Dec. at 473. The BIA concluded that he had not, and the Board did
not abuse its discretion in so concluding. As noted by the BIA, the general information
contained in newly proffered evidence was “not . . . highly probative of the respondent’s
particular claims.” 1
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we will DENY the petition for review of the BIA’s April
20, 2006 decision.
1
Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Petitioners’ motion to
reopen was foreclosed, we need not reach Petitioners’ second argument on appeal regarding
the Board’s failure to address the alleged pattern and practice of persecution against Chinese
and Christians in Indonesia.
5