Edwin Djohan Samiadji; Meivy Vike Poluan v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWIN DJOHAN SAMIADJI; MEIVY
VIKE POLUAN,
Petitioners,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-71014
Agency Nos. A088-320-632
A088-320-633
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Edwin Djohan Samiadji and Meivy Vike Poluan, natives and citizens of
Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
* 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
FEB 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2 15-71014
reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part
and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.
Petitioners do not raise, and have therefore waived, any challenge to the
BIA’s denial of their request to reopen pursuant to its sua sponte authority, or to
the BIA’s determination that they failed to establish prima facie eligibility for
relief under the Convention Against Torture. See Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d
1056, 1058 n.3 (9th Cir. 2010) (issues not raised or argued in a party’s opening
brief are waived).
The BIA abused its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as
untimely because the BIA failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its
determination that petitioners’ evidence did not establish materially changed
conditions in Indonesia. See Tadevosyan v. Holder, 743 F.3d 1250, 1252-53 (9th
Cir. 2014) (the BIA abuses its discretion when it fails to provide a reasoned
explanation for its actions). In rejecting petitioners’ claim of materially changed
country conditions, the BIA did not refer to any of the thirty-two exhibits
submitted in support of the motion, explain why the exhibits did not sufficiently
reflect materially changed conditions in Indonesia since 2009 that affected
petitioners’ eligibility for relief, or otherwise indicate that it meaningfully
considered the evidentiary record. We remand so that the BIA may more
thoroughly examine the evidence and explain the rationale behind its decision. See

-- 2 of 4 --

3 15-71014
Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 681 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The BIA abuses its
discretion when it denies petitioner’s claim with no indication that it considered all
of the evidence and claims presented by the petition.”); Hu v. Holder, 652 F.3d
1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 2011) (remanding where a meaningful review of the agency’s
decision could not be conducted because the agency failed to provide a reasoned
explanation of its decision).
The BIA also abused its discretion in denying the motion to reopen on the
ground that petitioners were not prima facie eligible for asylum or withholding of
removal, because the BIA failed to address petitioners’ contention regarding their
membership in a disfavored group. See Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133, 1140 (9th
Cir. 2016) (“[T]he BIA committed legal error when it failed to analyze Salim’s
individualized threat of persecution in light of his membership in a disfavored
group, and instead summarily concluded that Salim’s evidence addressed only
‘general conditions in Indonesia.’”); Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040
(9th Cir. 2005) (remanding where the BIA failed to address petitioner’s argument).
We remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See
INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
The government shall bear the costs for this petition for review.
Petitioners’ removal is stayed pending a decision by the BIA.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;

-- 3 of 4 --

4 15-71014
REMANDED.

-- 4 of 4 --