Salim v. Lynch, No. 13-71833 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, a native and citizen of Indonesia, seeks review of the BIA's denial of his motion to reopen his asylum and withholding of removal proceedings. The court concluded that the BIA improperly evaluated petitioner’s submission of newly available, material evidence of changed country conditions in Indonesia, particularly in light of his conversion to Catholicism following his 2006 hearing and the change in the basis of his claim for relief; the Board abused its discretion in concluding that the evidence provided with his motion to reopen was “cumulative” of the evidence submitted at the time of the earlier hearing; the BIA erred in its analysis of petitioner's individualized risk, as it failed to consider the evidence relating to that question in the context of his membership in a disfavored group; and, given the Board’s legal errors in rejecting petitioner’s motion to reopen, the court granted his petition for review, and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Immigration. The panel granted a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings based on changed country conditions concerning the treatment of Christians in Indonesia. The panel held that the Board improperly evaluated petitioner’s submission of newly available, material evidence of changed country conditions in Indonesia, particularly in light of petitioner’s conversion to Catholicism following his 2006 hearing and the change in the basis of his claim for relief. The panel concluded that the Board abused its discretion in concluding that petitioner’s new evidence was “cumulative” of the evidence submitted at the time of the earlier hearing. The panel also held that the Board erred in its analysis of petitioner’s individualized risk of future persecution, as it failed to consider the evidence relating to that question in the context of his membership in a disfavored group. The panel remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. SALIM V. LYNCH 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.