Samuel Sentosa v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAMUEL SENTOSA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70252
Agency No. A079-529-464
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted December 6, 2013
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and GLEASON, District
Judge.**
Samuel Sentosa, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision. The BIA dismissed Sentosa’s
appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision finding that Sentosa had filed a
FILED
JAN 16 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

frivolous application for asylum. The BIA also sustained the government’s appeal
of the IJ’s order granting Sentosa’s application for withholding of removal. We
have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny in part and grant in part
the petition for review.
We deny Sentosa’s petition for review in part because substantial evidence
supports the BIA’s conclusion that Sentosa filed a frivolous application for asylum.
Sentosa testified before the IJ that he knowingly submitted an asylum application
that contained fabrications. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.20. Those fabrications, which
described incidents of severe abuse, were material because they formed the factual
basis of Sentosa’s claim of past persecution. See Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S.
759, 770 (1988) (A “misrepresentation is material if it has a natural tendency to
influence, or was capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body
to which it was addressed.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).1
We grant Sentosa’s petition for review in part and remand for further
consideration of Sentosa’s application for withholding of removal. Sentosa
submitted substantial documentary evidence pertaining to country conditions in
1 For example, in his original affidavit, which he later admitted was partly
fabricated, Sentosa described an incident in Indonesia where he was beaten by two
men, forced to eat pages from his Bible, and sexually assaulted. His revised
affidavit did not include those statements.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

Indonesia, which the BIA did not discuss when it reversed the IJ’s grant of
Sentosa’s application for withholding of removal. “[T]he BIA has a duty to review
the record,” and when important aspects of the claim are disregarded, “denial of
relief is arbitrary” and “we must remand such cases for proper consideration.”
Tukhowinich v. INS, 64 F.3d 460, 463-64 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks
omitted). By failing to address Sentosa’s documentary evidence of country
conditions, the BIA did not properly determine whether Sentosa demonstrated a
pattern or practice of persecution against Christian or Chinese people in Indonesia,
and thus whether he was entitled to withholding of removal.
We accordingly grant the petition as to Sentosa’s claim for withholding of
removal based on a pattern or practice of persecution and remand to the BIA for
consideration of the documentary evidence in the record, as well as other current
country conditions it deems relevant, and for further proceedings consistent with
this disposition. We express no view on the ultimate resolution of Sentosa’s claim
for withholding of removal. We leave that determination for the BIA to make in
the first instance.
Each party shall bear its own costs.
DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --