CHRISTONY HARAHAP and CHANDRA SARAGIH v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTONY HARAHAP and CHANDRA
SARAGIH,
Petitioners,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70294
Agency Nos. A096-356-388
A096-364-570
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 17, 2018**
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Petitioners Christony Harahap and Chandra Saragih (“Petitioners”), natives
and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen their removal proceedings. As the
* 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).
FILED
MAY 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We grant the
petition for review and remand to the BIA for reconsideration of Petitioners’
motion to reopen in light of our intervening opinion in Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d
1133 (9th Cir. 2016).
In April 2008, an immigration judge denied Petitioners’ applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture. Petitioners, whose cases had been consolidated following their marriage,
claimed that they feared persecution because of their Christian religion and Batak
ethnicity if returned to Indonesia. The BIA dismissed Petitioners’ appeal, and we
denied Petitioners’ petition for review. See Harahap v. Holder, 522 F. App’x 392,
393 (9th Cir. 2013).
In September 2013, Petitioners moved the BIA to reopen the proceedings,
asserting changed country conditions for Christians in Indonesia. The BIA denied
the motion to reopen as untimely. The BIA determined that Petitioners failed to
show materially changed country conditions for Christians in Indonesia or a prima
facie individualized risk of persecution.
However, after the BIA’s decision, we issued our decision in Salim. Salim
also concerned a Christian Indonesian, and it held that the BIA abused its
discretion when it denied the petitioner’s motion to reopen as untimely. 831 F.3d
at 1136, 1138-39. We concluded that, based on evidence similar to here, there was

-- 2 of 3 --

3
substantial evidence of materially changed country conditions for Christians in
Indonesia between 2006 and 2013. Id. We also concluded that, based on similar
evidence as in the instant case, including a letter from Salim’s sister, and
considering that Christians in Indonesia are a “disfavored group,” the petitioner
had sufficiently demonstrated an individualized risk of persecution. Id. at 1140-41.
Because the BIA did not have the benefit of Salim when rendering its
decision in this case, we remand to allow the BIA to address the application of
Salim to Petitioners’ motion to reopen in the first instance.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED AND REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --