NOT FOR PUB LIC ATION UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT C HARLEY ZAC H AR IA, ) No. 10-72739 ) Pe titione r, ) Age n c y No. A075-683-010 ) v. ) M EM OR A NDUM * ) LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y ) Ge ne ra l, ) ) R e sponde nt. ) ) C HARLEY ZAC H AR IA, ) No. 11-72207 ) Pe titione r, ) Age n c y No. A075-683-010 ) v. ) ) LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y ) Ge ne ra l, ) ) R e sponde nt. ) )

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls 

# FIL ED AUG 19 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Subm itte d June 6, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, R

AW LINSON, a

nd B E A, C i rc uit Judge s. C ha rle y Za c ha ria , a native and c itiz e n of Indone sia , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (B IA) de nia l of his m otions to re ope n. Se e8 U.S.C . § 1229a (c )(7); 8 C .F.R
. § 1003.2(c )(1). W e de ny the pe titions. Whe n Za c ha

ria ’ s a pplic ations for a sy lum , 1 withholding, 2 an d C onve ntion Aga inst Torture 3 re lie f we re de nie d by the Im m igration Judge (IJ) on April 11, 2001, Za c ha

ria tim e ly a ppe a le d tha

t de c ision to the

B IA, 4 but it a ffirm e d

the IJ on Se pte m be r 25, 2002. Za c h aria

the n pe titione d for re vie w by this c ourt (“ 2002 Pe tition” ), but tha

t pe tition wa s de nie d on De c e m be r 10, 2003. Za c ha ria ’ s first m o tion to re ope n wa s not file d until July 6, 2010. In tha

t
m otion, Za c ha

ria a sse rte d tha

t his c ounse l at the he arings be fore the IJ (first

** T he pa ne l una nim ously finds this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

1 8 U.S.C . § 1158. W e note tha t the IJ de t e rm i ne d tha

t a sy lum wa s ba rre d by the o ne -y e a

r statute . Se e8 U.S.C . § 1158(a)(2)(B ). That issueis not be fore us. 2 8 U.S.C . § 1231(b)(3). 3 Unite d Nat ions C onve ntion Agai nst Tortureand Othe r C rue l, Inhum an or De gra ding Tre atm e nt or Punishm e nt, adopte d De c . 10, 1984, S. Tre aty

Doc . No. 100-20 (1988), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, im ple m e nte d

at 8 C .F.R
. § 1208.18. 4 The a ppe a l wa s file d on M ay

1, 2001. 2c ounse l) wa s ine ffe c tive , a nd tha t his c ounse l on the2002 Pe t ition (third c ounse l)
wa s a lso ine ffe c tive . He doe s not a sse rt tha t his c ounse l be fore the B IA (se c ond
c ounse l) wa s ine ffe c tive . He argue s tha t, e ve n though the

first m otion wa s not file d within ninet

y da y s 5 a fte r the B IA’ s de c i sion, thetim e to file should ha ve be e n e quita bly tolle d. 6 The B IA de t e rm ine d tha t he wa s not e ntitle d to tolling be c a use he did not a c t with duedilige nc e 7 in prose c uting his c la im tha t first c ounse l wa s ine ffe c tive , a

n d tha t in a ny e v e nt, he ha d not pre se nte d suffic ie nt e vide nc e to indic ate tha

t a ny e rror by first c ounse l ha d pre

judic e d him . For purpose s of this disposition we

will a ssum e , without de c iding, tha t Za c ha ria ha d a c te d dilige ntly , but his pe tition ne ve rthe l e ss founde rs on his c la im tha t e rrors by first c o unse l pre j udic e d him . In fa c t, at the April 11, 2001, m e rits he aring, the IJ found tha t Za c ha ria wa s c re dible , 8 but ha d not shown tha t he wa s e ntitle d to withholding or C AT re lie f. The B IA a ffirm e d tha t de c ision in 2002, a

nd whe n fa c e d with thefirst
m otion to re o pe n , it de te rm ine d tha t the m otion’ s “ e xtre m e ly ge ne ra l re fe re nc e s” to

5 Se e8 U.S.C . § 1229a (c )(7)(C )(i). 6 Se e Vale riano v . Gonzale s , 474 F.3d 669, 673 (9th C ir. 2007). 7 Se e Iturribarria v. IN

S , 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th C ir. 2003). 8 Se e C o r doba v . Holde r , 726 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th C ir. 2013); c f. K aur v . Ashc roft , 379 F.3d 876, 885, 890 (9th C ir. 2004); Ladha v . IN S , 215 F.3d 889, 897, 900 (9th C i r. 2000), ov e r

rule d on othe r grounds by Abe bev . Muk a se y , 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th C ir. 2009) (e n ba nc ). 3first c ounse l’ s fa ilure to submit m ate ria l e vide n c e or to prope rly pre pa re Za c ha ria for the he aring did not suffic e to justify re o pe ning; 9 the m otion did not show tha t Za c ha ria wa s pre j udic e d 1 0 by first c ounse l’ s a l le ge d ine ffe c tive ne ss. W i thout tha t, third c ounse l’ s fa ilure t o pursue a m otion to re ope n

ba se d on first c o unse l’ s a lle ge d
e rrors wa s not pre

judic i a l. B e c a

use the re c ord supports its de te rm ination re ga

rding pre j udic e , the B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion whe n it de c line d to re ope n on the ba sis of ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of first or third c ounse l. 1 1 Se e Toufighi v. Muk ase y , 538 F.3d 988, 992–93 (9th C i r. 2008). In his first motion to re ope n, Za c ha ria a lso sought to re ope n

on the ba sis of
c ha nge d c ountry

c onditions. S

e e8 U.S.C . § 1229a (c )(7)(C )(ii). Tha t, of c ourse , wa s not subje c t to thenine ty -day lim ita tion pe riod. Id. Howe ve r, Za c ha ria did have to show tha

t the e vide nc e of c ha

nge d c onditions wa s “ m ate ria l” and tha t it

“ wa s not a

va ila ble and c o uld not ha

ve be e n disc ove re d

or pre s e nte d at

the pre vious he aring.” 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(3)(ii); se e also Go v . Holde r , 744 F.3d 604, 609

9 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(1); Young Sun Shin v. Muk ase y , 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th C ir. 2008).

1 0 Se e Iturribarria , 321 F.3d a t 901. 1 1 Za c ha ria a lso a sse rts tha

t third c ounse l’ s fa ilure to file a pe tition for re he aring of our de c ision of De c e m be r 10, 2003, wa s ine ffe c tive a ssista n c e . B ut Za c ha ria doe s not point to a

ny e rrors of la

w or fa c t in our de c ision tha t would ha

ve supporte d a

pe tition. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 40(a)(2). 4(9th C ir. 2014). Thene w e vide nc e ha d to be “ ‘ q ua lita t ive l y diffe re nt’ ” 1 2 from

tha t of the pre vious he a

ring, a nd ha d to be suffic ie nt to e sta b lish a prim a fa c ie c a se for
re lie f. 1 3 B a se d on there c ord, inc luding there le va nt C ountry

R e p orts 1 4 and the
artic le s Za c ha

ria subm itte d, the B IA did not e rr whe n it de te rm ine d tha t he wa s not
e ntitle d to re o pe n ba se d on c ha nge d c ountry

c onditions. W e re c ogniz e tha

t for de c a de s C h i ne se -C hristia n s ha ve be e n subje c t to disc rim ination a

nd ha ra ssm e nt in Indone s ia , 1 5 but thee vide nc e doe s not c om pe l a de te rm i nation tha

t the ir proble m s ha d

qua lita tive l y c ha nge d during they e ars following Za c ha

ria ’ s initial he aring. M ore o ve r, while Za c h aria points to two m

o re spe c ific inc ide nts during tha t tim e , 1 6 those do not c om pe l a de t e rm i nation tha

t the B IA e rre d in de c iding tha t a prim a fa c ie c a se ha d not be e n spe lle d out. In other

1 2 N ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 987 (9th C i r. 2010); se ealso M alty v . Ashc roft , 381 F.3d 942, 946 (9th C ir. 2004).

1 3 Se e Young Sun Shin , 547 F.3d a t 1025. 1 4 Se eU.S. De p’ t of Sta

te , B ure a u of De m oc ra c y , H.R . a

n d La b., Inte rnationa l R e ligious Fre e dom R e port 2009: Indone s ia

(Oc t. 26, 2009); U.S. De p’ t of Sta

te , B ure a u of De m oc ra c y , H.R . a

nd La b., Indone s ia : C ountry

R e ports on Hum an R ights Pra c t ic e s–2000 (Fe b. 23, 2001); U.S. De p ’ t of Sta te , B ure a u of De m oc ra c y , H.R . a

nd La b., C ountry R e ports on Human R i ghts Pra c tic e s: Indone sia (Fe b. 25, 2000). 1 5 Se e S ae l v . Ashc roft , 386 F.3d 922, 925–27 (9th C ir. 2004); se ealso C handra v . Holde r , 751 F.3d 1034, 1036–37 (9th C ir. 2014). 1 6 Those we re : unple a s antne ss a t the Indone sia

n C onsula

te and a se xua l atta c k on his siste

r. 5words, the e vide nc e doe s not c om pe l a de te rm ination tha

t c onditions had qua lita tive ly c ha n ge d in thec ountry

in ge n e ra l, or a s a

pplie d to him se lf in pa rtic u la r. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion whe n

it de nie d the first m otion to
re ope n to the e xte nt tha

t it wa s ba se d upon c ha

nge d c ountry

c onditions. 1 7 Za c ha ria ’ s se c ond m otion to re ope n did not mate ria lly diffe r from his first
m otion to re o pe n ; the B IA did not a b use its disc re tion whe n it de nie d the se c ond
m otion a l so. 1 8 Pe tition DENIED.

1 7 Za c ha ria a sse rts tha

t the B IA de c ision did not suffic ie ntly show tha t it ha d c are fully c o nside re d t

he re c ord or sa id e nough to a ssure us tha t it ha d done so. Se e N ajmabadi , 597 F.3d a

t 990; Mov

s isian v
. Ashc roft , 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th C ir. 2005). Our re vie w of the B IA’ s orde r indic ate s tha t it did give

suffic ie nt c onside ration to his c la im s. Se eN ajmabadi , 597 F.3d a

t 990. 1 8 Se esupra n. 17. 6Zac haria v

. Lync h , Case Nos. 10-72739 and 11-72207 Raw linson, Cir c uit Judge , c onc ur r ing: I c onc ur in the re sult. 

# FIL ED AUG 19 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS