Christine Oliviani Widjaja v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTINE OLIVIANI WIDJAJA,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70553
Agency No. A079-519-763
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted November 8, 2019
Pasadena, California
Before: MURGUIA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and ZOUHARY,** District
Judge.
Christine Oliviani Widjaja (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of Indonesia,
petitions for review of a 2015 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order
denying a motion to reopen her removal proceedings. We grant the petition for
review and remand to the BIA for reconsideration of Petitioner’s motion to reopen
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Jack Zouhary, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
FILED
NOV 29 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
in light of all of the evidence before it, including the Freedom House and United
States Commission on International Religious Freedom reports, as well as our
intervening opinion in Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2016).
Salim also concerned a Christian Indonesian, and we held there that the BIA
abused its discretion when it denied the petitioner’s motion to reopen. Id. at 1137–
41. We concluded that, based on evidence similar to the evidence presented here,
there was substantial evidence of materially changed country conditions for
Christians in Indonesia between 2006 and 2013. Id. at 1137–39. We also
concluded that, based on evidence similar to the evidence presented here, and
considering that Christians in Indonesia are a “disfavored group,” the petitioner
had sufficiently demonstrated an individualized risk of persecution. Id. at 1139–
41.
Because the BIA did not have the benefit of Salim when it rendered its
decision in this case, we remand to allow the BIA to address the application
of Salim to Petitioner’s motion to reopen in the first instance. See, e.g., Kui Khi Sie
v. Sessions, 740 F. App’x 123, (9th Cir. 2018) (remanding to the BIA to address
the application of Salim to petitioners’ motion to reopen); Harahap v. Sessions,
723 F. App’x 534 (9th Cir. 2018) (same); Lalenoh v. Sessions, 705 F. App’x 591
(9th Cir. 2017) (same).
PETITION GRANTED, and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --