Lilik Aju Lindawati; Fofu Tjoeng v. MONTY WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LILIK AJU LINDAWATI; FOFU
TJOENG,
Petitioners,
v.
MONTY WILKINSON, Acting Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-71689
Agency Nos. A075-758-507
A075-758-508
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted December 9, 2020
Pasadena, California
Before: BEA, THAPAR, ** and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.
Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge COLLINS
Petitioners Lilik Lindawati and Fofu Tjoeng seek review of the denial by the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of their motion to reopen due to their failure
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Amul R. Thapar, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
FILED
JAN 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 5 --

2
to establish changed country conditions and prima facie eligibility for relief. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to review denials of motions to reopen.
We review denials of motions to reopen for abuse of discretion, “although [de
novo] review applies to the BIA’s determination of purely legal questions.”
Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). Factual
findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. Sharma v. INS, 89 F.3d 545, 547
(9th Cir. 1996). We deny the petition.
Because Petitioners’ motion is based on changed country conditions, there is
no time limit within which they must have filed it. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
In addition to establishing changed country conditions, Petitioners must also
establish prima facie eligibility for relief. INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104 (1988).
Here, Petitioners’ original asylum application, adjudicated in 2003, was
based on their claim of mistreatment by Muslims. The evidence included acts of
violence against Chinese Christians, including a 1998 murder, anti-Christian
massacre, and church burning, and a 2000 bombing. Petitioners’ evidence in
support of this motion describes the rise of ISIS in Indonesia since 2003 and the
threat to Christians there, in particular the existence of an Indonesian ISIS chapter,
the increased visibility of ISIS supporters, the increase in terrorism due to ISIS

-- 2 of 5 --

3
involvement, how local Islamic terrorism has been “eclipsed” by ISIS, and a series
of January 2016 attacks in Indonesia by ISIS-affiliated terrorists.
The BIA held that while Petitioners’ evidence documented “the plight of the
vast, minority Christian population in Indonesia, the evidence proffered does not
meaningfully reflect materially changed country conditions in Indonesia.” A
continuation of the same type of violence may constitute changed conditions where
that violence has intensified or increased. Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir.
2016). However, the numerous violent incidents described by Petitioners in their
original asylum application provided the BIA with substantial evidence to
conclude that conditions had not changed between 2003 and 2017. Thus,
substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioners failed to
establish changed country conditions.
Petitioners also did not submit sufficient evidence of a risk of individualized
harm. In Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2016), Salim offered evidence
supporting his claim of individualized risk of future persecution, namely “a letter
from his sister in Jakarta describing the recent targeting of their local church.” Id.
at 1136. The 2017 letters from Lindawati’s sister and Tjoeng’s brothers do not
cite any incidents of harm to them or anyone they personally knew. Nor did
Petitioners present any other evidence that would have required the BIA to

-- 3 of 5 --

4
conclude that an adequate showing of individualized risk had been made.
Petitioners have therefore failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief.
Accordingly, the BIA acted within its discretion when it denied the motion
to reopen. Thus, the petition for review is DENIED.

-- 4 of 5 --

Lindawati v. Wilkinson, No. 18-71689
COLLINS, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree with the majority that the BIA properly concluded that Petitioners
did not submit sufficient evidence of a risk of individualized harm to meet their
burden to establish prima facie eligibility for relief, and I agree that, on that basis,
the BIA properly denied Petitioners’ motion to reopen.
But I disagree with the majority’s alternative holding that Petitioners also
failed to present sufficient evidence of changed country conditions for Chinese
Christians in Indonesia between 2003 and 2018. The evidence presented to the
agency on that score by Petitioners is substantially comparable to that discussed in
Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133, 1138 (9th Cir. 2016), where we held that the BIA
abused its discretion in concluding that country conditions for Christians in
Indonesia had not materially changed after 2006, id. at 1141. Although the BIA
correctly distinguished Salim with respect to the individualized-risk point, the BIA
did not explain how, in addressing the issue of changed country conditions, it was
able to reconcile its conclusions on that score with our analysis in Salim.
Accordingly, I would not rely on that alternative ground in upholding the BIA’s
denial of Petitioners’ motion to reopen.
FILED
JAN 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 5 of 5 --