NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-1097

___________

JULIA INDRIATI,

Petitioner

v.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

Respondent

____________________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(Agency No. A099-606-309)

Immigration Judge: Honorable Margaret R. Reichenberg

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

February 13, 2013

Before: RENDELL, ALDISERT and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 20, 2013)

___________

OPINION OF THE COURT

___________

PER CURIAM

Julia Indriati petitions for review of an order from the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motion to reopen. For the following reasons, we will deny 

the petition for review.
2

Indriati is a native and citizen of Indonesia who entered the United States in 2000 

on a tourist visa. She left Indonesia because she did not feel safe after her home was 

ransacked in 1974 and 1998, and she was accosted on the street in 1999 by a man who 

grabbed her, threw her Bible to the ground, and warned her against going to church. In 

2006, Indriati sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the 

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) claiming that she feared that Muslims in Indonesia 

would harm her because she is Chinese and Catholic. Her application was referred to an 

Immigration Judge (“IJ”). Indriati conceded that she is removable as charged for staying 

longer than her visa permitted. The IJ denied relief after a hearing, concluding that: (1) 

Indriati‟s asylum application was untimely; (2) her past experiences did not rise to the 

level of persecution; and (3) she did not demonstrate that it was more likely than not that 

she would be persecuted or tortured. The IJ did, however, grant voluntary departure. 

The BIA agreed with the IJ‟s determinations and dismissed her appeal. This Court 

denied Indriati‟s petition for review. Indriati v. Att‟y Gen., 347 F. App‟x 815, 817 (3d 

Cir. 2009).

In 2011, Indriati filed a motion to reopen her immigration proceedings, arguing 

that the untimeliness of her motion should be excused due to changed country conditions 

in Indonesia. She claimed that persecution of Christians by Muslim fundamentalists had 

increased, and she submitted a variety of news articles and State Department reports in 

support of her claim. The BIA denied the motion, concluding that the evidence of 
3

violence against Christians by Muslim fundamentalists was merely a continuation of 

conditions that existed at the time of Indriati‟s 2007 immigration hearing and therefore 

did not establish materially changed conditions or circumstances in Indonesia. This

petition for review followed.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA‟s denial of 

a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Pllumi v. Att‟y Gen., 642 F.3d 155, 158 (3d 

Cir. 2011). Such review is highly deferential, and the BIA‟s decision will not be 

disturbed unless it is “„arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law‟.” Id. at 158 (quoting Filja 

v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 241, 251 (3d Cir. 2006)). As a general rule, an alien may file only 

one motion to reopen and must do so within ninety days of the date of the final 

administrative decision. 8 C.F.R § 1003.2(c)(2). These limitations do not apply, 

however, to motions that rely on “changed circumstances arising in the country of 

nationality . . . if such evidence is material and was not available and could not have been 

discovered or presented at the previous hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).

Indriati challenges the BIA‟s determination that she failed to show changed 

country conditions. She first argues that the BIA misapplied the term “material” when 

concluding that her evidence showed a continuation of prior problems in Indonesia 

“rather than material changes in country conditions.” A.R. at 4, Pet‟r‟s Br. at 8-9. She 

asserts her evidence is material because it shows violence against Christians by Muslims. 

The BIA, however, did not hold that Indriati‟s evidence was not material; rather the 
4

import of the quoted language – and the BIA‟s decision as a whole – is that the evidence 

did not persuasively show a change in country conditions.

Similarly flawed is Indriati‟s argument that the BIA erred by failing to find 

changed country conditions after it held that there was an increase in violence against 

Christians. Indriati reasons that an “increase” means that there has been “change,” and 

thus a finding of changed country conditions must inexorably follow. Again, she focuses 

on only one sentence in the BIA‟s opinion: “[w]hile some documents . . . indicate that 

the number of attacks increased in 2010 . . . these problems appear to be the continuation 

of the problems that existed at the time of [Indriati‟s] hearing rather than material 

changes in country conditions.” A.R. at 4. Read in isolation, this sentence may appear to 

be inconsistent by suggesting that an increase in attacks equates to a continuation of prior 

conditions. But in the sentences that followed, the BIA discussed other evidence 

submitted by Indriati which indicated that: (1) attacks are only sporadic and large-scale 

attacks have not occurred; (2) the Indonesian government prosecuted some individuals 

responsible for religious violence; (3) the police intervened to protect churches in some 

instances; and (4) there were efforts to improve relations between religious groups. Id. 

Read in context, it is apparent that the BIA did not categorically hold that Indriati‟s 

evidence established an increase in violence. Instead, the BIA merely noted that some 

evidence indicated an increase, whereas the weight of the evidence reflected a 

continuation of existing conditions. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by choosing one 
5

interpretation of the evidence over another. See Lopez De Hincapie v. Gonzales, 494 

F.3d 213, 219 (1st Cir. 2007) (“Where the record supports plausible but conflicting 

inferences in an immigration case, the . . . choice between those inferences is, a fortiori, 

supported by substantial evidence.”)

Indriati also argues that the BIA drew the following erroneous conclusions from 

her evidence: (1) the inability of some Christian churches to obtain building and other 

permits provides an opportunity for opposition by Muslim fundamentalists;

1

(2) the 

Indonesian government prosecuted some individuals who were responsible for religiously

motivated violence; and (3) attacks on churches are infrequent. A.R. at 4. We reject 

Indriati‟s argument as it amounts to nothing more than a dispute about what inferences 

can be drawn from certain documents in the record. Review of the documents that the 

BIA cited when making the aforementioned statements shows that those documents 

support the BIA‟s conclusions. See e.g., A.R. at 47, 60, 62-63, 93, 100-02, 104. 

Therefore, we cannot conclude that the BIA erred.

Finally, Indriati argues that the BIA abused its discretion by failing to address her 

withholding of removal and CAT claims. This argument lacks merit for two reasons. 

 

1

Indriati argues that this statement “implies” that the opposition is due to the lack of 

permits, while ignoring the fact that the Indonesian government facilitates the opposition 

by refusing to issue permits. Pet‟r‟s Br. at 11, Reply Br. at 7. We do not read the BIA‟s 

opinion as minimizing or rationalizing the violence against Christian churches in 

Indonesia. Rather, one aspect of the evidence before the BIA was simply the difficulty of 

some churches in obtaining permits and the use of this fact by some Muslim groups as an 

opportunity for protest or violence. 
6

First, the BIA explicitly rejected Indriati‟s claim for withholding of removal in the last 

paragraph of its decision. See A.R. at 4. Second, while the BIA did not explicitly 

address Indriati‟s CAT claim, the logical extension of the BIA‟s conclusions – that 

Indriati‟s evidence does not satisfy the standard for reopening and does not show that she 

will likely be harmed – is that her CAT claim would also fail. Although the BIA should 

have expressly addressed the claim in its decision, Indriati has not demonstrated that a 

remand for such analysis is necessary because the outcome is clear.

 For these reasons, we will deny the petition for review.