CHRISTINE WIDJAJA V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 15-70553 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 29 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHRISTINE OLIVIANI WIDJAJA, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-70553 Agency No. A079-519-763 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. 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. 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
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.
