IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60670

Summary Calendar

FNU SUGIHARTO; AMELIA ARIFIN,

Petitioners

v.

LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A095 225 505

BIA No. A200 107 491

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Petitioners Fnu Sugiharto and his co-applicant wife, Amelia Arifin, have 

petitioned this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA’s) 

decision denying as untimely their motion to reopen removal proceedings, in 

which they sought to re-apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 

under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and asserted that country 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 21, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-60670 Document: 00513241470 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/21/2015
No. 14-60670

2

conditions had worsened since their original application. The BIA determined 

that the motion to reopen was untimely filed and that Sugiharto and Arifin 

had failed to show that the untimely filing should be excused because of 

changed country conditions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).

Sugiharto and Arifin, who are Christian, assert that they presented 

evidence of increased violence against Christians and of the Indonesian 

government’s active participation in “denying Christians the ability to worship 

freely” by “forcibly closing churches” and by failing to act when Islamic 

extremist groups attacked Christian worshipers. They argue that the BIA 

failed to give adequate consideration to evidence they presented of changed 

country conditions, that the BIA erred in relying on the State Department’s 

2013 International Religious Freedom Report, and that their claims, if true, 

would establish eligibility for relief.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by taking administrative notice of 

the State Department’s 2013 International Religious Freedom Report because 

that report is an official document that was incorporated by reference in an 

exhibit attached to the motion to reopen. See Enriquez-Gutierrez v. Holder, 

612 F.3d 400, 409-11 (5th Cir. 2010); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv). The conditions 

and incidents of religious oppression described in that report were not 

materially different in kind, numerosity, and severity from those reported in 

the 2007 International Religious Freedom Report. Both documents reported 

that the Indonesian government generally upheld the rights of followers of 

recognized religions, including Catholics and Protestants, but that 

discrimination and sectarian violence continued to occur and authorities 

sometimes failed to respond sufficiently to suppression of religious minorities. 

Furthermore, the October 2013 letter written by Sugiharto’s sister—upon 

 Case: 14-60670 Document: 00513241470 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/21/2015
No. 14-60670

3

which he relies as evidence of worsening circumstances—states that Indonesia 

“is still the same now and before, discrimination still exist[s], they still don’t 

like Chinese and people with other religions, especially Christians.”

The two reports and the other materials in the administrative record 

describe similar, rather than worsening, conditions. See Gotora v. Holder, 567 

F. App’x 219, 222 (5th Cir. 2014); In re S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (BIA 

2007). Sugiharto and Arifin have not shown that the BIA acted outside of its 

broad discretion in denying their motion to reopen because their evidence did 

not show that conditions in Indonesia had materially worsened. See Zhao v. 

Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 303 (5th Cir. 2005). Because Sugiharto and Arifin 

have not shown that the BIA abused its discretion, we need not consider 

whether prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief 

under the CAT has been established. See Haider v. Holder, 471 F. App’x 283, 

283-84 (5th Cir. 2012). The petition for review is DENIED.

 Case: 14-60670 Document: 00513241470 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/21/2015