Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-05-72401/USCOURTS-ca9-05-72401-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eric H. Holder Jr.
Respondent
Farangis Najmabadi
Petitioner

Document Text:

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FARANGIS NAJMABADI, 

Petitioner, No. 05-72401

v. Agency No.  A072-439-437 ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney

General, OPINION

Respondent. 

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted

November 5, 2009—Pasadena, California

Filed March 9, 2010

Before: Harry Pregerson, Jay S. Bybee and

Milan D. Smith, Jr., Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.;

Dissent by Judge Harry Pregerson

3681

Case: 05-72401 03/09/2010 ID: 7257389 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 1 of 21
COUNSEL

Enrique Arevalo and Xavier Rosas, Law Office of Enrique

Arevalo, South Pasadena, California, for petitioner Farangis

Najmabadi.

Peter D. Keisler, Linda S. Wernery, and Angela N. Liang,

United States Department of Justice, Office of Immigration

Litigation, Washington, DC, for respondent Eric H. Holder

Jr., United States Attorney General.

OPINION

MILAN D. SMITH, JR., Circuit Judge:

Petitioner, Farangis Najmabadi, a native and citizen of Iran,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s

(BIA or Board) order denying her motion to reopen her

3684 NAJMABADI v. HOLDER

Case: 05-72401 03/09/2010 ID: 7257389 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 2 of 21
removal proceedings on the basis of changed conditions in

Iran. Because we hold that Najmabadi failed to introduce previously unavailable, material evidence, we deny her petition

for review. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Najmabadi was admitted to the United States on October 5,

1986, as a non-immigrant visitor with authorization to remain

in the United States until April 5, 1987. On October 27, 1998,

the former Immigration and Naturalization Service filed a

notice to appear with the immigration court charging Najmabadi with removability. Najmabadi filed an asylum application on November 18, 1998.

On April 11, 2000, an Immigration Judge (IJ) conducted a

removal proceeding, at which Najmabadi claimed that she left

Iran due to its then war with Iraq. She stated that “there

wasn’t any particular reason” that she left Iran but rather

“[e]verything changed, especially for a woman like me.”

Asked why she did not want to return to Iran, Najmabadi testified that she is “not sure if [she] can live there,” and after

sixteen years, knows the United States “now probably more

than [her] country.” Najmabadi further testified that she has

never participated in any political rallies nor joined any political organizations. In addition, Najmabadi never had any problems in Iran prior to leaving. Rather, Najmabadi testified that

she does not think she can “fit in” in Iran and fears returning

to Iran because of the way women are treated.

The IJ denied Najmabadi’s application. While the IJ found

Najmabadi’s testimony to be credible, he concluded that she

had not established past persecution or a well-founded fear of

future persecution. After the BIA affirmed, we denied the

petition for review in an unpublished decision. Najmabadi v.

Ashcroft, 107 F. App’x 98 (9th Cir. 2004). Relying on Fisher

v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc), we

rejected Najmabadi’s claim that she has a well-founded fear

NAJMABADI v. HOLDER 3685

Case: 05-72401 03/09/2010 ID: 7257389 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 3 of 21
of future persecution “based on her refusal to conform to the

social norms of Iran if returned to that country.” Najmabadi,

107 F. App’x at 100.

On December 14, 2004, Najmabadi filed a petition to

reopen based on changed circumstances in Iran. In her motion

to reopen, Najmabadi argued that the relationship between

Iran and the United States changed significantly after September 11, 2001. She pointed to ties between Iran and terrorist

organizations; Iran’s nuclear arms capabilities; tension

between Iran and the United States stemming from the war in

Iraq; and “generalized strife” including an Iranian governmental backlash to Iran’s reform movement. With respect to

this last category, Najmabadi referred to the following: State

Department reports citing the worsening of Iran’s human

rights record from 2000 to 2003; evidence that a group of 50

women were lashed for listening to loud music; election of

“hard liners”; the denouncement of an Iranian woman who

won the Nobel Prize; torture of student activists as a means

of suppressing dissent; a crackdown on the release of information over the Internet; the reported arrest of the editor of

a women’s rights journal; and greater restrictions on women’s

attire and social freedoms. Najmabadi also submitted a

renewed asylum application and accompanying affidavit. In

her affidavit, Najmabadi claims: the Iranian government

would perceive her as being “pro-U.S. and pro-Western”; she

“do[es] not agree with how the government treats their

women and people in general”; and she “will be active in trying to change Iran and the situation for women.”

On March 31, 2005, the BIA denied Petitioner’s motion to

reopen, concluding that Najmabadi did not establish changed

circumstances. Relying on our decision in Malty v. Ashcroft,

381 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2004), the BIA held that while the evidence that Najmabadi submitted “establish[es] that the situation in Iran continues to be deplorable, and that tensions with

the United States appear to be increasing[,]” it does not “establish a level of change that is linked to [Najmabadi’s] par3686 NAJMABADI v. HOLDER

Case: 05-72401 03/09/2010 ID: 7257389 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 4 of 21
ticular circumstances.” The BIA noted that the record at the

time of Najmabadi’s original hearing contained the 1999

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, which listed

“systemic abuses . . . includ[ing] extrajudicial killings, summary executions, disappearances, widespread use of torture

and other degrading treatment (including rape), and arbitrary

arrest and prolonged detention.” The BIA characterized Najmabadi’s evidence as describing “general conditions which

affect the population at large[,]” and held that this evidence

was “in evidence at the prior hearing.” Finally, the BIA held

that there was no evidence, which fell “outside the realm of

speculation,” that established “returnees from the United

States will likely face persecution.”

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review denials of motions to reopen for abuse of discretion, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008),

and defer to the BIA’s exercise of discretion unless it acted

arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law, Singh v. INS, 295

F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002). We review the BIA’s determination of purely legal questions de novo, and review its

factual findings for substantial evidence. Bhasin v. Gonzales,

423 F.3d 977, 983 (9th Cir. 2005). Finally, “[o]ur review is

limited to the actual grounds relied upon by the BIA.”

Ramirez-Altamirano v. Holder, 563 F.3d 800, 804 (9th Cir.

2009).

DISCUSSION

A. Standards Governing Motions to Reopen

[1] Generally, a party wishing to file a motion to reopen

must do so within ninety-days. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). However, the ninety-day time limit does not apply where the

motion to reopen is “based on changed circumstances arising

in the country of nationality or in the country to which deportation has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was

NAJMABADI v. HOLDER 3687

Case: 05-72401 03/09/2010 ID: 7257389 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 5 of 21
not available and could not have been discovered or presented

at the previous hearing.” Id. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). The BIA can

deny a motion to reopen on any one of “at least” three independent grounds—“failure to establish a prima facie case for

the relief sought, failure to introduce previously unavailable,

material evidence, and a determination that even if these

requirements were satisfied, the movant would not be entitled

to the discretionary grant of relief which he sought.” INS v.

Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992). The Supreme Court has

instructed that “[t]he granting of a motion to reopen is . . . discretionary, and the Attorney General has ‘broad discretion’ to

grant or deny such motions.” Id. (internal citations omitted).

B. Denial Based On Previously Unavailable, Material

Evidence

[2] The BIA considered Najmabadi’s motion to be “premised on the fact that circumstances in Iran have significantly

declined since her hearing, and as a result she has a viable

claim of persecution based on direct and imputed political

opinion, and the fact that she is a ‘westernized woman.’ ” The

BIA held that the evidence submitted by Najmabadi in her

motion to reopen, which established the existence of torture

and punishment for dissenters, was in evidence at the prior

hearing. It explained that the evidence addressed general conditions affecting the population at large, and was not linked

to Najmabadi’s “particular circumstances.” It also noted that

there was no evidence, which fell “outside the realm of speculation,” that established that “returnees from the United States

will likely face persecution.” Thus, the BIA based its denial

of Najmabadi’s motion to reopen on the second ground articulated above—Najmabadi’s failure to introduce previously

unavailable, material evidence. As we must, we limit our

review to these grounds. See Ramirez-Altamirano, 563 F.3d at

804. 

1. Qualitatively Different Evidence

[3] In Malty v. Ashcroft, we held that in order for evidence

to be “material,” “not available,” and not able to have “been

3688 NAJMABADI v. HOLDER

Case: 05-72401 03/09/2010 ID: 7257389 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 6 of 21
discovered or presented at the previous hearing,” it must be

“qualitatively different” from the evidence presented at the

previous hearing. 381 F.3d at 945-46; see also 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(c)(1) (“A motion to reopen proceedings shall state

the new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the

motion is granted and shall be supported by affidavits or other

evidentiary material.” (emphasis added)). Relying primarily

on Malty, Najmabadi argues that the Board abused its discretion in finding that her evidence was not materially distinct

from the evidence at her original hearing, because her “new”

evidence is qualitatively different. We therefore describe

Malty in some detail. 

In Malty, an Egyptian Coptic Christian filed an application

for asylum and withholding of removal in 1992. 381 F.3d at

944. At the asylum hearing, he testified that he had been

taunted while in high school by Islamic teachers and classmates due to his Christianity. Id. He was forced to finish college from home, and was unable to find employment as a

result of religious discrimination. Id. He also testified that “he

and his family received menacing telephone calls from

Islamic militants.” Id.

After the immigration judge denied his petition and the

BIA affirmed, we denied his petition for review. Id. Malty

then filed a motion to reopen based on changed circumstances

in Egypt. Id. Along with his motion to reopen, Malty submitted evidence “detailing rising levels of violence against Egyptian Coptic Christians generally and specific acts of violence

against his family in particular.” Id. (emphasis added). Those

acts included “a series of brutal attacks” against members of

Malty’s family, including his father, all occurring after

Malty’s original asylum hearing. Id. In addition, Malty’s

father had been subsequently “warned of consequences Malty

would face if he returned.” Id. 

We held that Malty’s evidence accompanying his motion to

reopen was “ ‘material and was not available and could not

NAJMABADI v. HOLDER 3689

Case: 05-72401 03/09/2010 ID: 7257389 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 7 of 21
have been discovered at the previous hearing.’ ” Id. at 945

(quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii)). We faulted the BIA for

not recognizing that the evidence presented along with his

motion to reopen was “qualitatively different” from his previous evidence, and for narrowly focusing on the fact that the

new evidence was simply related to the petitioner’s initial

claim. Id. We explained that the evidence Malty had presented at his asylum hearing did little more than describe incidents of harassment and discrimination. Id. However, Malty’s

new evidence showed that the “harassment had increased to

the level of persecution, both with respect to Coptic Christians

generally and with respect to Malty’s family specifically.” Id.

at 946 (emphasis added).1

Malty’s “new” evidence consisted first of a 1999 “Freedom

House Report,” which described “mass arrests and torture . . .

of Egyptian Coptic Christians, murders of numerous Coptic

1

In arguing that Najmabadi has shown changed circumstances, the dissent simply recites Malty’s observation that “a ‘petitioner’s evidence

regarding changed circumstances will almost always relate to his [or her]

initial claim.’ ” Dissent at 3702 (quoting Malty, 381 F.3d at 945). Indeed,

that observation is obvious. A motion to reopen asks the Board to reopen

a case in which it has previously rendered a decision. In requesting that

the Board reopen the case, the petitioner will often seek relief on the same

grounds alleged in the original petition. Yet the dissent ignores that while

the “new” evidence a petitioner includes in the motion to reopen necessarily relates to the initial claim, its relation to the initial claim is not sufficient to amount to “material” evidence. For example in Malty, the BIA had

described the evidence presented along with the motion to reopen as

merely “a continuance of the circumstances that gave rise to [the petitioner’s] first claim.” Malty, 381 F.3d at 945 (internal quotation marks omitted). We explained that the BIA had incorrectly framed the issue since

“[t]he critical question is not whether the allegations bear some connection

to a prior application, but rather whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim

for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution.” Id.

(emphasis added). In order to determine whether the petitioner demonstrated a sufficient change in circumstances, we assessed the materiality of

Malty’s new evidence and held it to be “qualitatively different from the

evidence presented at his asylum hearing.” Id. 

3690 NAJMABADI v. HOLDER

Case: 05-72401 03/09/2010 ID: 7257389 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 8 of 21
Christians on account of religion, and the arrest of the

Secretary-General of the Egyptian Organization for Human

Rights[.]” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). It also

described the growth of jiyza, a tax Christians were forced to

pay to avoid violent attacks. Id. Malty also submitted a

detailed declaration describing separate incidents of persecution of his family members in Egypt. Id. For example, that

declaration described that Malty’s brother had been arrested,

interrogated, beaten, burnt with cigarettes and subjected to

electrical shocks by interrogating officers. Id. Malty’s father

had also been attacked by Islamic militants, who destroyed his

business. Id. Malty’s brother was later beaten, at which time

his attackers told him that “they were going to kill all infidels

like him.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The police

refused to investigate each of these attacks. Id. Malty’s father

was threatened by people aware of Malty’s asylum application and told that if Malty returned to Egypt he would be

arrested and prosecuted. Id. On the Coptic Christmas Eve,

Malty’s family’s apartment was ransacked, and later his father

again attacked, this time for failing to pay jizya. Id.

We had little trouble concluding that evidence of “menacing telephone calls” and high school “taunts” is “qualitatively

different” from that of “mass arrests and torture” and the

kinds of horrific events described in Malty’s declaration. Najmabadi’s petition does not persuade us to reach the same conclusion. 

At her asylum hearing, Najmabadi submitted the 1999

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices on Iran (the 1999

Report). The 1999 Report described Iran’s human rights

record as “poor,” and detailed “serious problems” in Iran’s

human rights policies. For example, it included the following

information about life in Iran:

Paramilitary volunteer forces known as Basijis, and

gangs of thugs, known as the Ansar-e Hezbollah

(Helpers of the Party of God), who often are aligned

NAJMABADI v. HOLDER 3691

Case: 05-72401 03/09/2010 ID: 7257389 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 9 of 21
with specific members of the leadership, act as vigilantes, and are released into the streets to intimidate

and threaten physically demonstrators, journalists,

and individuals suspected of counter-revolutionary

activities. Both regular and paramilitary security

forces committed numerous, serious human rights

abuses.

. . . 

The Government restricts citizens’ right to change

their government. Systematic abuses include extrajudicial killings and summary executions; disappearances; widespread use of torture and other degrading

treatment, reportedly including rape; harsh prison

conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention, and prolonged and incommunicado detention. Perpetrators

often commit such abuses with impunity.

. . . 

Violence against women occurs, and women face

legal and societal discrimination. . . . Vigilante

groups, with strong ties to certain members of the

Government, enforce their interpretation of appropriate social behavior through intimidation and violence.

. . . 

The State enforces gender segregation in most public

spaces, and prohibits women mixing openly with

unmarried men or men not related to them. Women

must ride in a reserved section on public buses and

enter public building, universities, and airports

through separate entrances. . . . Women are subject

to harassment by the authorities if their dress or

behavior is considered inappropriate, and may be

3692 NAJMABADI v. HOLDER

Case: 05-72401 03/09/2010 ID: 7257389 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 10 of 21
sentenced to flogging or imprisonment for such violations.

The 1999 Report also described the Iranian government’s

backlash to “reform,” noting that the “Government closed

numerous reform-oriented publications during the year and

brought charges against prominent political figures and members of the clergy for expressing ideas viewed as contrary to

the ruling orthodoxy.” The record at Najmabadi’s asylum

hearing also included the 1997 United States Department of

State’s “Profile of Asylum Claims and Country Conditions”

issued on Iran (the 1997 Profile). The 1997 Profile stated that,

the Islamic regime’s human rights record continues

to be abysmal, with continued reports of extrajudicial killings and summary executions; widespread

use of torture and other degrading treatment; disappearances; arbitrary arrest and detention; lack of fair

trials; harsh prison conditions; and repression of the

freedoms of speech, press, assembly, association and

religion. . . . Women are victims of domestic violence as well as legal and social discrimination . . . .

With respect to women in particular, the 1997 Profile noted

that “[s]ome women who do not conform to [Iran’s] dress

code have been subject to arrest and flogging. . . . Depending

on the individual woman’s experiences and her personal circumstances, life in today’s Iran can be unbearable under such

conditions.” 

[4] Najmabadi argues that the evidence she submits along

with her motion to reopen is “qualitatively different” from

that submitted at her initial asylum hearing. Specifically, Najmabadi points to the 2003 Country Reports on Human Rights

Practices (the 2003 Report). However, the 2003 Report

merely describes conditions similar to those found in the 1999

Report. Though the 2003 Report states, “[t]he Government’s

poor human rights record worsened,” it goes on to describe,

NAJMABADI v. HOLDER 3693

Case: 05-72401 03/09/2010 ID: 7257389 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 11 of 21
in almost carbon copy form, the examples contained in the

1999 Report, i.e., “summary executions,” “disappearances,”

“torture and other degrading treatment,” and “flogging.” This

is significantly different from the situation in Malty, where we

juxtaposed harassing telephone calls with torture, beatings,

and death threats. The bulk of Najmabadi’s remaining evidence, though voluminous, is similarly redundant.

[5] Moreover, as the BIA concluded, the evidence Najmabadi presents in her motion to reopen does not share the same

type of individualized relevancy we required in Malty. There,

in addition to presenting evidence of a change in country conditions indicating that harassment of Coptic Christians had

escalated to persecution, Malty presented evidence detailing

six separate incidents of persecution of his family members,

including the threat that Malty would be arrested and prosecuted if he returned to Egypt. Malty, 381 F.3d at 944.

Likewise, in Bhasin v. Gonzales, we also required previously unavailable evidence to be material to the petitioner’s

claim. There, while the IJ had found the petitioner to have

established a well-founded fear of future persecution, it

denied asylum eligibility because the persecution was not “on

account of” the petitioner’s imputed political opinion or membership in a particular social group, that group being her family. Bhasin, 423 F.3d at 982. The BIA affirmed, finding that

“other close members of the [petitioner’s] family are living in

India without difficulty. The [Islamic militant group] has not

persecuted the respondent’s brother, two daughters, or one

daughter-in-law, the wife or her missing eldest son.” Id. In

granting the petition for review, we held that “laterdiscovered evidence presented in the motion to reopen rebuts

this critical finding.” Id. We explained that the petitioner presented new, previously unavailable evidence that her two

daughters and son-in-law had received death threats, violent

verbal threats, and had subsequently disappeared while the

appeal before the Board was pending. Id. at 983.

3694 NAJMABADI v. HOLDER

Case: 05-72401 03/09/2010 ID: 7257389 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 12 of 21
[6] The evidence Najmabadi points to lacks the materiality

we required in Malty and Bhasin. Rather, it simply recounts

generalized conditions in Iran that fail to demonstrate “that

her predicament is appreciably different from the dangers

faced by her fellow citizens.” Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 967

(9th Cir. 1998) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). 

[7] Najmabadi points to the affidavit accompanying her

motion to reopen as evidence of her change in particular circumstances. There, she asserts that she “will be active in trying to change Iran and the situation for women[,]” and that

she “want[s] to make sure Iranian women get to wear [the

clothes she designs] one day.” The Board is required to accept

as true the facts stated in Najmabadi’s affidavit unless they

are inherently unbelievable. Limsico v. INS, 951 F.2d 210,

213 (9th Cir. 1991). However, there is no indication that the

Board failed to credit Najmabadi’s affidavit, as it characterized her motion as premised on her “direct and imputed political opinion, and the fact that she is a ‘westernized woman’ ”

and specifically referenced both Iran’s “limitations on the

freedoms of women” and its punishment of dissenters. See

also Maroufi v. INS, 772 F.2d 597, 600 (9th Cir. 1985) (finding no indication in the record that the BIA did not accept the

truth of an affidavit’s factual allegations accompanying a

motion to reopen). Rather, the Board concluded that Najmabadi’s evidence details conditions affecting the population at

large. There is substantial evidence in the record to support

such a finding. 

Moreover, “[t]he [BIA] does not have to write an exegesis

on every contention. What is required is merely that it consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard

and thought and not merely reacted.” Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366

F.3d 799, 807 n.6 (9th Cir. 2004) (alterations in original)

(internal quotation marks omitted); accord Wang v. BIA, 437

F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[W]e do not hold, and in fact

NAJMABADI v. HOLDER 3695

Case: 05-72401 03/09/2010 ID: 7257389 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 13 of 21
reject any implication . . . that where the BIA has given reasoned consideration to the petition, and made adequate findings, it must expressly parse or refute on the record each

individual argument or piece of evidence offered by the petitioner.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Here, the Board

adequately considered Najmabadi’s evidence and sufficiently

announced its decision. It noted that “limitations on the freedoms of women have been an unfortunate cornerstone in postrevolution Iran[,]” and expressed its belief that Najmabadi

provided nothing besides speculative evidence to suggest that

“returnees from the United States will likely face persecution.” Though the Board did not directly reference Najmabadi’s statements concerning her intent to be politically active

in Iran, there is nothing to suggest it did not consider that evidence in deciding that post-revolution Iran has limited such

activism for some time. We cannot say that the Board’s failure to give reasons detailing why the affidavit did not present

previously unavailable, material evidence was arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law. Cf. Maroufi, 772 F.2d at 600 (finding that it was error for the BIA to assume an affidavit must

be independently corroborated, but holding that such error

was neither dispositive nor prejudicial). 

[8] We have no doubt that the BIA would reach the same

decision if we asked it to focus more closely on the contents

of Najmabadi’s affidavit. Accord Wang, 437 F.3d at 275

(declining to remand for Board to consider evidence on a

motion to reopen where the Board failed to discuss the evidence “in any particular detail” because to do so would be

futile). We are so confident for two reasons. First, we fail to

understand how asserting that Najmabadi will be “active in

trying to change Iran and the situation for women,” or that

Najmabadi wants to make Iranian women one day wear the

clothes that she has designed, is evidence that “was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the

previous hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Second, though

related, we have recognized the perverse incentive that would

result from granting an applicant reopening based on a “self3696 NAJMABADI v. HOLDER

Case: 05-72401 03/09/2010 ID: 7257389 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 14 of 21
induced” change in personal circumstance; here, Najmabadi’s

desire to become politically active, following her previous

testimony to the contrary. See He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128,

1132 (9th Cir. 2007); Larngar v. Holder, 562 F.3d 71, 76-77

(1st Cir. 2009) (collecting cases holding that a change in personal circumstances should not qualify as a change in country

circumstances). That is because a motion pursuant to 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) must be “based on changed circumstances

arising in the country of nationality or in the country to which

deportation has been ordered.” (emphasis added). Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that

the evidence Najmabadi submitted in her motion to reopen

was not qualitatively different from the evidence presented at

the original hearing. 

2. Returnees From The United States To Iran

[9] The Board also held that there was no evidence establishing that returnees from the United States will likely face

persecution. We have previously rejected an asylum claim

based on the hatred of Iranians for Americans, noting that

“this type of claim cannot possibly justify asylum[,]” because

it would mean that “every citizen of a country unfriendly to

the United States would be entitled to asylum.” KavehHaghigy v. INS, 783 F.2d 1321, 1323 (9th Cir. 1986) (per

curiam). 

3. Disfavored Group

Finally, Najmabadi also argues that she has a well-founded

fear of future persecution based on her membership in a disfavored group. According to Najmabadi, that group consists of

“westernized” women forcibly removed from the United

States to Iran. Establishing a well-founded fear of future persecution is one aspect of a petitioner’s prima facie case for

relief. See Bhasin, 423 F.3d at 984. Because the Board denied

Najmabadi’s motion to reopen based on her failure to introduce previously unavailable, material evidence, it did not

NAJMABADI v. HOLDER 3697

Case: 05-72401 03/09/2010 ID: 7257389 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 15 of 21
need to reach the question of whether Najmabadi established

a prima facie case for relief.2See Doherty, 502 U.S. at 323.

Thus, since our review is limited to the grounds actually

relied upon by the BIA, Ramirez-Altamirano, 563 F.3d at 804,

we decline to address Najmabadi’s “westernized” group claim.3

[10] However, we note that Najmabadi’s failure to provide

evidence linked to her particular circumstances is similarly

applicable in this context. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d

1049, 1066 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[A] ‘general, undifferentiated

claim’ based solely on the threat to the group as a whole is not

sufficient for an individual petitioner to establish the requisite

likelihood of persecution under the ‘singled out individually’

2Similarly, in her motion to reopen, Najmabadi also sought asylum

under the humanitarian exception. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(A), (B).

However, because Najmabadi did not present previously unavailable,

material evidence, the Board was entitled to deny the motion solely on

those grounds. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988) (explaining

that there are “at least three independent grounds on which the BIA may

deny a motion to reopen,” the second of which is the failure to introduce

“previously unavailable, material evidence” (emphasis added)); Toufighi,

538 F.3d at 996. The Board was not required to give an additional basis

for denying the motion. Indeed, Najmabadi’s failure to provide previously

unavailable, material evidence means that her motion is untimely. 8 C.F.R.

§§ 1003.2(c)(1)-(3). In addition, we note that 8 C.F.R.

§§ 1208.13(b)(1)(A), (B) provides for discretionary grants of asylum to

victims of past persecution, from which Najmabadi has never claimed to

suffer. See Belishta v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 1078, 1080 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that the humanitarian asylum exception “provides for discretionary

grants of asylum to victims of past persecution who no longer reasonably

fear future persecution on account of a protected ground”); Mohammed v.

Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 801 (9th Cir. 2005) (same). 

3

Ignoring this requirement, the dissent argues that Najmabadi has now

demonstrated a prima facie case for relief “based on her Western appearance and affiliation.” Dissent at 3701. While “[w]e have never recognized

pro-Western as a social group protected against persecution,” Toufighi,

538 F.3d at 997, we are nevertheless not permitted to address the issue in

this case, since our review is limited to those grounds relied upon by the

BIA, and the BIA was entitled to deny Najmabadi’s motion to reopen

based solely on her inability to produce previously unavailable, material

evidence. See Doherty, 502 U.S. at 323. 

3698 NAJMABADI v. HOLDER

Case: 05-72401 03/09/2010 ID: 7257389 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 16 of 21
rubric.” (quoting Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1179

(9th Cir. 2007) (en banc)). That is, even assuming that Najmabadi is a member of a disfavored group, she points to no evidence of an individualized threat to persecute her. See, e.g.,

Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1069 (9th Cir. 2003)

(individualized threat found where petitioner’s home had been

broken into, his property destroyed, a woman was murdered

caring for petitioner’s cattle, and a man was murdered

because they mistook him for the petitioner’s father-in-law);

Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-28 (9th Cir. 2004) (same

where petitioner testified about past threats to her safety

including that her car was vandalized, the boarding house she

was living in was stoned, and an angry mob rushed a taxi in

which she was riding and attempted to open the door); Hartooni v. INS, 21 F.3d 336, 341-42 (9th Cir. 1994) (“personal

connection to the general persecution” found where soldiers

stoned the petitioner’s church while she was inside,

approached the petitioner and a group of girls who did not

have their hair properly bound, and visited the petitioner’s

home to inquire about relatives who fled to the United States);

Kotasz v. INS, 31 F.3d 847, 854-55 (9th Cir. 1994) (denying

asylum to petitioner who did not “specify any personal experiences pertaining to individual targeting for persecution” but

granting as to petitioner who had been arrested at political

demonstrations and was an active opponent of the Communist

regime).

CONCLUSION

[11] For the reasons described, we hold that the Board did

not abuse its discretion in denying Najmabadi’s motion to

reopen. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

NAJMABADI v. HOLDER 3699

Case: 05-72401 03/09/2010 ID: 7257389 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 17 of 21
PREGERSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting: 

Farangis Najmabadi is a sixty-year-old native and citizen of

Iran. She has lived in the United States since April 5, 1987.

In those twenty-three years, she studied fashion design, established a dress-making business, and now designs Western

style clothing for Iranian women.

In March 1998, the former INS initiated removal proceedings against Najmabadi for overstaying her tourist visa. Najmabadi appeared before an IJ without counsel. She applied for

asylum, withholding, and relief under the Convention Against

Torture. On April 11, 2000, the IJ denied Najmabadi’s asylum

claim. The IJ found Najmabadi credible, but concluded that

she lacked a well-founded fear of future persecution based on

the record at that time. 

On July 20, 2001, Najmabadi appealed the IJ’s denial to the

BIA, this time with the assistance of counsel. On February 25,

2003, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision without opinion. On

August 18, 2004, this Court denied Najmabadi’s petition for

review. Najmabadi v. Ashcroft, 107 F. App’x 98 (9th Cir.

2004). 

On December 14, 2004, Najmabadi filed a motion to

reopen with the BIA based on the changed circumstances in

Iran following September 11, 2001. On March 31, 2005, the

BIA denied Najmabadi’s motion to reopen. The majority

denies Najmabadi’s petition for review of the BIA’s denial of

her motion to reopen. I would grant that petition. 

Some of the evidence Najmabadi submitted shows a reasonable likelihood1

 that Najmabadi has satisfied the require1This court has held that a motion to reopen must be supported with

new evidence, but “need only establish a prima facie case for relief, and

need not conclusively establish that [the petitioner] warrants relief.”

Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir. 2003). A “respondent demonstrates prima facie eligibility for relief where the evidence reveals a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief have been

satisfied.” Id. (citing In re S-V-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1306 (BIA 2000))

(emphasis added). 

3700 NAJMABADI v. HOLDER

Case: 05-72401 03/09/2010 ID: 7257389 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 18 of 21
ment of a one in ten chance of persecution2

 based on her

Western appearance and affiliation. For example, the record

reflects that in 2003, two long-term Iranian U.K. residents

were forcibly returned to Iran. Amnesty International reported

that the two Iranians may have faced torture and been held in

detention. Additionally, the record contains a May 2004 U.S.

State Department travel warning which states that U.S. citizens may be at risk of “harassment or kidnapping” in Iran.

Further, the warning said “U.S. citizens of Iranian origin who

are considered by Iran to be Iranian citizens have been

detained and harassed by Iranian authorities.” 

Although Najmabadi is not a U.S. citizen, she has lived in

the U.S. for the last twenty three years and has the appearance

and mannerisms of an Iranian-U.S. citizen. Najmabadi herself

said that she “looks and acts like a Westerner derived from

twenty years of living in the United States.” Najmabadi’s affidavit asserts that the Iranian government punishes Iranians

sent back sent back to Iran from the U.S. with “torture, flogging, executions, beheadings and lashes.” As the majority

notes, under Limisco v. INS, 951 F.2d 210, 213 (9th Cir.

1991), the BIA is required to accept these facts, stated in Najmabadi’s motion to reopen, as true unless they are inherently

unbelievable. Najmabadi’s assertions that the Iranian government mistreats Iranians sent back from the U.S. are not inherently unbelievable. Iran’s human rights violations are widely

known and supported by the record. Therefore, Najmabadi’s

assertions should be accepted as true.3

2

It is well-established that asylum may be granted where an applicant

demonstrates a one in ten chance of persecution. See Al-Harbi v. INS, 242

F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir. 2001). Thus, Najmabadi’s motion to reopen need

only establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that she faces at least

a one in ten chance of persecution. 

3

It is also worth noting that in his original decision denying Najmabadi’s claims for relief, the IJ found “no reason to doubt [Najmabadi’s]

truthfulness and veracity.” 

NAJMABADI v. HOLDER 3701

Case: 05-72401 03/09/2010 ID: 7257389 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 19 of 21
The State Department Human Rights Country Reports for

Iran from 1999 to 2004 uniformly state that “citizens returning from abroad sometimes were subjected to searches and

extensive questioning by government authorities for evidence

of anti-government activities abroad.” The reports also uniformly state that “authorities sometimes harassed women if

their dress or behavior was considered inappropriate and

women may be sentenced to flogging or imprisonment for

such violations.”

Although the Country Reports remained consistent from

1999 to 2004, before and after Najmabadi’s immigration court

merits hearing, it is difficult to understand how anyone could

think that conditions in Iran for those associated with the

West have not dramatically changed for the worse following

September 11, 2001. Indeed, the case cited by both parties

and the majority opinion on the standard for a motion to

reopen based on changed country conditions, Malty v. Ashcroft, recognized that a “petitioner’s evidence regarding

changed circumstances will almost always be related to his

[or her] initial claim; nothing in the statute or regulations

requires otherwise.” 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004). 

The BIA’s conclusion that there is no evidence supporting

the likelihood of persecution of returnees from the U.S. “outside the realm of speculation” is undermined by the above

described record evidence. Najmabadi submitted some new

evidence, which was unavailable at the time of Najmabadi’s

hearing before the IJ, including the Amnesty International

Report and the 2004 U.S. State Department travel warning. It

is reasonably likely that, upon reopening, Najmabadi could

establish that she faces a one in ten risk of being targeted and

detained by the Iranian government or non-government agents

that the government is unable or unwilling to control. 

In conclusion, Najmabadi has lived in this country for

twenty-three years as an entrepreneur, a small business owner,

and a law-abiding member of her community. Because I

3702 NAJMABADI v. HOLDER

Case: 05-72401 03/09/2010 ID: 7257389 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 20 of 21
believe that Najmabadi should be granted the chance to

reopen her case to provide evidence regarding the persecution

of individuals returned from the West to Iran, including “torture, flogging, executions, beheadings, and lashes,” I respectfully dissent. 

NAJMABADI v. HOLDER 3703

Case: 05-72401 03/09/2010 ID: 7257389 DktEntry: 32-1 Page: 21 of 21