Frans Lie and Trace Gunawan v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANS LIE AND TRACE GUNAWAN,
Petitioners,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General
Respondent.
No. 11-72175
Agency Nos. A077-815-113
A077-855-356
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 13, 2017 **
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges and BATTAGLIA,***
District Judge.
* 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 Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge for the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
FILED
JUN 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Petitioners Frans Lie and Trace Gunawan (collectively referred to as the “Lie
Family”) filed a petition to review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
denial of their second motion to reopen seeking asylum, withholding, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) as untimely. A panel of this court
held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the Lie Family’s first motion
to reopen because the Lie Family had not presented sufficient evidence of changed
country conditions in Indonesia. Lie v. Holder, 401 F. App’x 65 (9th Cir. 2011).
The crux of the current petition is whether the Lie Family has produced
evidence to satisfy an exception to the ninety-day filing deadline that is “based on
changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality . . . .” 8 C.F.R. §
1003.2(c)(2). Additionally, the Lie Family asserts that remand is warranted based
upon their contentions that the BIA’s order is vague, ambiguous, and fails to address
their CAT claim. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to
reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the
petition for review.
It is undisputed that the factual basis underlying the Lie Family’s 2003 asylum
application (based on persecution on account of their Chinese ethnicity and Buddhist
beliefs) and their 2011 motion to reopen (based on their fear of future persecution
on account of their Christian beliefs) are qualitatively different. Nevertheless,

-- 2 of 4 --

3
despite their change in personal circumstances, the Lie Family’s 2011 motion to
reopen fails to present evidence to demonstrate that country conditions for
Indonesian Christians has materially changed since they filed their 2003 asylum
application. Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 989–90 (holding that evidence must be
“qualitatively different” to warrant reopening). Instead, the evidence attached to
their asylum application and motion to reopen documents a constant and persistent
state of aggression and violence against Christians living in Indonesia that has
neither escalated nor increased since 2003. Accordingly, on review, we do not find
that the BIA abused its discretion when it held that the Lie Family’s motion to reopen
was untimely as they had failed to present sufficient evidence to establish the
existence of changed country conditions. Furthermore, Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d
1133 (9th Cir. 2016), a case cited by the Lie Family in their citation of supplemental
authorities is factually distinguishable to the instant matter and is thus unpersuasive.
We also find the Lie Family’s requests for remand unavailing. Upon review
of the BIA’s order, we find it neither vague nor ambiguous. Moreover, given that
the Lie Family’s motion to reopen was found to be untimely, the entirety of their
motion, including their CAT claim, was time-barred. See Go v. Holder, 744 F.3d
604, 608 (9th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the BIA was under no obligation to make any
additional findings as to the merits of the Lie Family’s CAT claim.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
We therefore affirm the BIA’s denial of the Lie Family’s motion to reopen as
untimely and deny their requests for remand.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --