Filed: Apr. 15, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 10-3-ag Ciu v. Holder BIA A096 266 638 A097 966 295 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOT
Summary: 10-3-ag Ciu v. Holder BIA A096 266 638 A097 966 295 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTA..
More
10-3-ag
Ciu v. Holder
BIA
A096 266 638
A097 966 295
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 15th day of April, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
9 REENA RAGGI,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 KIEN-PENG CIU, SURYANI JUNG,
14 Petitioners,
15
16 v. 10-3-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONERS: Charles Christophe, New York, New
24 York
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Thomas B. Fatouros, Senior
28 Litigation Counsel; Jeffrey R.
29 Meyer, Attorney, Office of
1 Immigration Litigation, Civil
2 Division, United States Department
3 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
4
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
7 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for
8 review is DENIED.
9 Kien-Peng Ciu and Suryani Jung, natives and citizens of
10 Indonesia, seek review of a December 7, 2009, order of the
11 BIA denying their motion to reopen. In re Kien-Peng Ciu,
12 Suryani Jang, Nos. A096 266 638, A097 966 295 (B.I.A. Dec.
13 7, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
14 underlying facts and procedural history of this case.
15 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for
16 abuse of discretion, mindful of the Supreme Court’s
17 admonition that such motions are “disfavored.” Ali v.
18 Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing INS v.
19 Doherty,
502 U.S. 314, 322-23 (1992)). There is no dispute
20 that petitioners’ June 2009 motion to reopen was untimely
21 because the BIA entered a final administrative order in
22 November 2004. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Although
23 petitioners contend that the time and number limitations do
24 not apply to their motion to reopen as it is “based on
2
1 changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality”
2 and the evidence they submitted “is material and was not
3 available and could not have been discovered or presented at
4 the previous hearing,” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), their
5 arguments are unavailing.
6 As an initial matter, there is no indication that the
7 BIA ignored any material evidence petitioners submitted.
8 See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir.
9 2008) (recognizing that the Court has rejected the notion
10 that the agency must “expressly parse or refute on the
11 record each individual argument or piece of evidence offered
12 by the petitioner”); see also Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of
13 Justice,
471 F.3d 315, 336 n.17 (2d Cir. 2006) (presuming
14 that the agency “has taken into account all of the evidence
15 before [it], unless the record compellingly suggests
16 otherwise”). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in
17 finding that letters from petitioners’ family members were
18 not new evidence because the letters primarily discussed
19 events during the 1998 riots and, to the extent the letters
20 refer to other incidents, the statements did not contain
21 dates or any other specific details. 8 C.F.R.
22 § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Contrary to petitioners’ argument, the
3
1 record supports the BIA’s determination that, although
2 Muslims in Indonesia have engaged in discrimination and
3 abuse against Christians, petitioners failed to establish
4 that conditions in Indonesia had changed fundamentally since
5 their merits hearing, as required to warrant reopening. See
6 Xiao Ji Chen, 471 F.3d at 342 (holding that the weight
7 afforded to the applicant’s evidence in immigration
8 proceedings lies largely within the discretion of the IJ);
9 Santoso v. Holder,
580 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir. 2009)
10 (declining to disturb the agency’s finding that there is no
11 pattern or practice of persecution against Chinese
12 Christians in Indonesia).
13 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
14 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion
15 for a stay of removal in this petition is DENIED as moot.
16 Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is
17 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate
18 Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
19 FOR THE COURT:
20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
21
22
4
