Yusni Pirmansyah v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YUSNI PIRMANSYAH,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
Nos. 12-73271
15-73914
Agency No. A097-103-094
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 14, 2018**
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and SESSIONS,***
District Judge.
FILED
MAY 31 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable William K. Sessions III, United States District Judge
for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Petitioner Yusni Pirmansyah petitions for review of decisions by the Board
of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding the denial of asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, and denying
Pirmansyah’s second motion to reopen. We deny both petitions.
Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination made by
the Immigration Judge (IJ) against Pirmansyah, including “significant
inconsistencies” among the proffered testimony, asylum applications and
declarations, and documents submitted in conjunction with the hearing. These
inconsistencies ranged from whether or not Pirmansyah gave money to his
identified political party to whether or not he was abandoned in the woods after
being attacked. Because there is substantial evidence in the record to support the
adverse credibility determination, Pirmansyah’s petition must be denied. See 8
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 745 (9th Cir. 2007)
(noting that an adverse credibility determination must be upheld unless a different
finding is compelled by the evidence).
Reopening of a previously adjudicated asylum claim is warranted only if a
petitioner demonstrates materially changed circumstances or conditions “arising in
the country of nationality or in the country to which deportation has been ordered.”
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2. Relying on the most recent country report for Indonesia and
2

-- 2 of 3 --

other evidence presented during the hearing, the BIA concluded that members or
former members of Pirmansyah’s identified political party were not targeted for
persecution, and that Pirmansyah for the second time had failed to meet his heavy
burden of establishing changed country conditions. See I.N.S. v. Doherty, 502 U.S.
314, 323 (1992) (observing that motions to reopen are “disfavored”). This
determination was not an abuse of discretion on the part of the BIA. See Socop-
Gonzalez v. I.N.S., 272 F.3d 1176, 1187 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (reviewing the
denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion).
PETITIONS DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --