Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02145/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02145-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alberto Gonzales
Respondent
Poniman Poniman
Petitioner

Document Text:

-1-

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2145

___________

Poniman Poniman, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of a

v. * Final Decision of the

* Board of Immigration Appeals.

Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General *

of the United States of America, * 

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: December 11, 2006

Filed: April 2, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BEAM, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

Poniman Poniman (Poniman), a Christian native and citizen of Indonesia,

petitions this court for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(BIA) denying Poniman’s motion to reopen his removal proceedings on the basis of

new, previously unavailable evidence regarding changed conditions in Indonesia.

Finding no abuse of discretion, we deny the petition for review.

Appellate Case: 06-2145 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/02/2007 Entry ID: 3294427
1

Poniman did not petition this court for direct review of the BIA’s removal

decision.

-2-

I. BACKGROUND

Poniman was born in 1972 near the village of Mahalaan, Indonesia, within the

Mamasa district on the southern portion of the island of Sulawesi. Poniman grew up

on his family’s farm in that same region of Sulawesi among other Christians. Because

Poniman did not feel safe anymore as a Christian in Indonesia, he left the country and

on March 15, 1996, entered the United States as a non-immigrant visitor. 

Poniman remained in the United States beyond the authorized period of stay,

and on April 11, 2003, he was charged with being an alien subject to removal for

remaining in the United States for a time longer than permitted. Poniman conceded

he was deportable and requested asylum, withholding of removal, and protection

under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). After a hearing on the merits of

Poniman’s application for relief, the Immigration Judge (IJ) determined Poniman was

ineligible to apply for asylum because Poniman neither timely filed his asylum

application nor demonstrated excuse for his delay. The IJ also denied withholding of

removal and relief under the CAT, but granted Poniman the privilege of voluntary

departure. Poniman appealed the IJ’s decision. On November 16, 2005, the BIA

adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision, and dismissed the appeal.1

 

In January 2006, Poniman timely filed a motion with the BIA to reopen his

removal proceedings, asserting he had new evidence of changed conditions in portions

of Sulawesi Island in Indonesia, more specifically in his home district of Mamasa,

resulting from an outbreak of violence and widespread attacks against Christians

living there. Poniman alleged, “Radical Muslims in Polewali Mamasa Regency, part

of the newly inaugurated West Sulawesi province in Indonesia, have threatened [his]

family members, destroyed houses, churches and other property, and displaced his

family since his asylum hearing.” Such attacks, Poniman argued, were perpetrated by

Appellate Case: 06-2145 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/02/2007 Entry ID: 3294427
-3-

militant anti-Christian groups, which the Indonesian government either was

“unwilling or unable to control.” According to Poniman, his “home in the remote

Mamasa district of West Sulawesi has become part of the deadly religious conflict,”

and his family cannot return to their home due to the presence of outside fighters who

continue to operate in the region. Poniman alleged the Mamasa region and nearby

areas are unsafe and are surrounded by Islamic troops. Poniman also indicated

Islamic militants threatened to kill his brother, if his brother and family did not leave

Mamasa.

In support of his motion, Poniman submitted, among other things, an affidavit

from his brother Arnol Karel (Karel), who stated that in October 2004, during the time

of Poniman’s removal hearing, Poniman’s family members were forced to flee their

village of Mahalaan in the Mamasa district following an outbreak of violence arising

from a dispute over the formation of a new local authority district. Karel’s affidavit

declared, “The religious conflict in nearby Poso has made it impossible for our

remaining family members in Indonesia to return to the farm.” Additionally, in a

letter dated December 20, 2005, several of Poniman’s siblings in Indonesia indicated

their areas were not safe as a result of violence perpetrated by Islamic troops, and

stated Christians living in certain areas, including Mamasa, were facing eradication.

The letter discussed the existence of “deep religious conflict” since the 2002

subdivision of Polewali Mamasa County into Muslim Polewali County and Christian

Mamasa County. The letter further stated Poniman’s siblings cannot flee to other

places because of their accents and cultural ways, and do not know when they will be

able to return to their home. Poniman also accompanied his motion to reopen with

several articles detailing the outbreak of violence against Christian Indonesians and

the tension between Christians and Muslims in Indonesia. 

The BIA denied Poniman’s motion to reopen, finding the new evidence

Poniman submitted failed to demonstrate a prima facie case for withholding of

Appellate Case: 06-2145 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/02/2007 Entry ID: 3294427
2

The BIA also held that the evidence accompanying Poniman’s motion to

reopen did not address the IJ’s determination that Poniman’s asylum application was

untimely under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). Poniman does not challenge this conclusion

in his opening brief. 

-4-

removal and protection under the CAT.2

 The BIA concluded Poniman’s new evidence

did not indicate Poniman “would be unable to relocate within [another region of]

Indonesia to avoid future threats to his life or freedom, or that it is more likely than

not that [Poniman] would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of” the Indonesian

government. 

Poniman petitioned for review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen, and

contends the BIA abused its discretion by dismissing Poniman’s new evidence

regarding the religious conflict and outbreak of violence targeting Poniman’s family

and other Christians in Mamasa, and by failing to apply the factors set forth in 8

C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(3) in evaluating the reasonableness of internal relocation.

II. DISCUSSION

We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen immigration

proceedings. Gebremaria v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 734, 738 (8th Cir. 2004). “An abuse

of discretion occurs if a decision is without rational explanation, departs from

established policies, invidiously discriminates against a particular race or group, or

where the agency fails to consider all factors presented by the alien or distorts

important aspects of the claims.” Feleke v. INS, 118 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 1997).

“A motion to reopen proceedings shall not be granted unless it appears to the

[BIA] that evidence sought to be offered is material and was not available and could

not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing.” 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(c)(1). Given the strong public interest in bringing litigation to a close,

motions to reopen generally are disfavored “because ‘[g]ranting such motions too

freely will permit endless delay of deportation by aliens creative and fertile enough

Appellate Case: 06-2145 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/02/2007 Entry ID: 3294427
-5-

to continuously produce new and material facts sufficient to establish a prima facie

case.’” Gebremaria, 378 F.3d at 737 (alteration in original) (quoting INS v. Abudu,

485 U.S. 94, 108 (1988)). The Supreme Court has noted at least three independent

grounds on which the BIA may deny a motion to reopen: (1) failure by the movant to

establish a prima facie case for the underlying substantive relief sought; (2) failure by

the movant to introduce previously unavailable, material evidence; or

(3) a determination the movant would not be entitled to the discretionary relief sought.

Abudu, 485 U.S. at 104-05.

To be eligible for withholding of removal, the applicant must demonstrate it is

more likely than not his life or freedom would be threatened in the proposed country

of removal “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social

group, or political opinion.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2); see, e.g., INS v. Stevic, 467

U.S. 407, 429-30 (1984); Surya v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 874, 878 (8th Cir. 2006).

Additionally, to be eligible for withholding of removal under the CAT, the applicant

must show it is more likely than not he would be tortured in the country of removal.

8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). For withholding of removal and the CAT, the applicant

cannot meet his burden if the applicant could avoid a future threat to his life or

freedom by relocating to another part of the country and it would be reasonable to

expect the applicant to do so. Id. § 1208.16(b)(2), (c)(3)(ii). In determining whether

it would be reasonable to expect the applicant to relocate, “adjudicators should

consider, among other things, whether the applicant would face other serious harm in

the place of suggested relocation; any ongoing civil strife within the country;

administrative, economic, or judicial infrastructure; geographical limitations; and

social and cultural constraints, such as age, gender, health, and social and familial

ties.” Id. § 1208.16(b)(3). 

When the applicant has not established past persecution, the applicant bears the

burden of establishing relocation would be unreasonable. Id. § 1208.16(b)(3)(I); see,

e.g., Mohamed v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 999, 1006 (8th Cir. 2005). Because Poniman has

Appellate Case: 06-2145 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/02/2007 Entry ID: 3294427
3

We also note another article submitted by Poniman in support of his motion to

reopen characterized the conflict in Mamasa as being “administrative, rooted primarily

in the desire of local officials for personal gain,” and discounted the notion the

conflict was caused by religious, cultural, or ethnic differences. Such evidence

weakens Poniman’s ability to put forth a prima facie case demonstrating his eligibility

for withholding of removal under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16.

-6-

not established he suffered past persecution, Poniman must show relocating within

Indonesia would be unreasonable. 

Although the BIA’s opinion denying Poniman’s motion to reopen does not

engage in a rote recitation of the factors set forth in § 1208.16(b)(3), the BIA

ultimately concluded Poniman failed to address the IJ’s finding Poniman could

relocate within Indonesia. Following our thorough review of the record, we agree

with the BIA’s conclusion. Poniman’s motion to reopen speaks only to changed

circumstances and increased violence against Christians by radical Muslim forces in

Poniman’s home region of Mamasa and the surrounding Sulawesi Island areas.

Poniman’s motion makes no mention of whether relocation elsewhere within

Indonesia would be unreasonable. For instance, our review of the record reveals no

evidence the North Sulawesi region (which is characterized as being “mainly

Christian” in at least one article submitted by Poniman in support of his motion) is

unsafe for Christians such as Poniman. Absent a showing that relocation to North

Sulawesi or other regions within Indonesia would be unreasonable, we are left to

speculate about the potential violence Poniman might endure, a standard insufficient

to satisfy Poniman’s burden under § 1208.16(b)(3)(i).3

We recognize the record reflects a certain degree of unrest in Poniman’s home

region of Mamasa. But, in the absence of credible and substantial evidence

concerning the impossibility or unreasonableness of internal relocation, an issue on

which Poniman bore the burden to demonstrate a prima facie case, we conclude the

BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Poniman’s motion to reopen. 

Appellate Case: 06-2145 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/02/2007 Entry ID: 3294427
-7-

III. CONCLUSION

We deny Poniman’s petition for review.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2145 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/02/2007 Entry ID: 3294427