2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-20-2009 

# K eyrup an v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-2991

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Keyr up an v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 981. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/981I M G - 1 1 7 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 08- 2991

___________ CY NT HI A P AT RI CI A KE YR UP AN, Pet i t i oner v . A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R e s p o n d e n t

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 95- 369- 629) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e C har l es M . H oneym an

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y15, 2009 B efor e: B A R R Y , SM I T H A N D H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y20, 2009)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i onerC ynthi a K eyrupan pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ’ ( “B I A ”) J une 6, 2008 or derdeny i ng herm ot i on t o r eopen he ri m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ngs . W e w i l l denythe pet i t i on.2 I . C ynthi a K eyrupan i s a pr act i ci ng C hr i s t i an and c i t i zen of I ndones i a. She ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es on Sept ember10, 2001, as a non- i m m i gr antB - 2 vi s i t or . O n D ece m ber 26, 2001, K eyrupan fi l ed an appl i cat i on foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and p ro te c tio n u n d e r t h e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rt u re (“ C A T ” ). A tan A pr i l 19, 2004 evi dent i aryhear i ng, K eyrupan s t at ed thats he ca m e t o the U ni t ed St at es t o es cape vi ol ence and di s cr i m i nat i on di r ect ed aga i ns therbeca us e s he i s an ethni c C hi nes e C hr i s t i an. T he I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) deni ed K eyrupan’ s appl i cat i on for asy l um , fi nd i ng that the h arm dem on strat ed d i d n ot r i se t o the l evel of past p e rse c u tio n . W ith n o p re su m p tio n d u e to p a st p e rse c u tio n , K e yru p a n w a s u n a b le to demonstr at e thats he w oul d be t ar get ed forfutur e per s ecut i on. K eyrupan appe al ed the IJ’ s ru lin g a n d , o n D e c e m b e r 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 , the B IA a f f irm e d . K e yru p a n d id n o t p e tit io n th is C our tforr evi ew of thatdeci s i on. O n Jan u ary1 1 , 2 0 0 8 , K ey rup an fil ed a m o ti o n to reo p en b ase d o n ch an g ed co u n try condi t i ons i n I ndones i a. T he B I A deni ed the mot i on t o r eopen, fi ndi ng thatK eyrupan fai l ed t o es t abl i s h change d countr ycondi t i ons s uffi ci entt o al l ow hert o fi l e bey ond the n in e ty -d a yf

ili n g re q u ire m e n t f

o r m o tio n s to re o p e n . S p e c if ica lly , the B IA h e ld th a t a 2007 U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof St at e Tra vel W arni ng ( “2007 Tra vel W arni ng”) that K e yru p a n o f

f e re d a s e v id e n c e in su p p o rt o f c h a n g e d c o u n tryc o n d iti o n s d id n o t co n n e c t to heri ni t i al as y l um cl ai m . I n addi t i on, the 2007 Tra vel W arni ng di d notappl yt o herK eyrupan’ s s on, a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen, w as born on J ul y12, 2007. 1 3 beca us e s he i s nota U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen. T he B I A fur thernot ed thatt o the ext ent K eyrupan’s m oti on cou l d b e con strued as request i ng asy l um for her son, such a requ est w a s n o t re lev a n t to h e r m o tio n to re o p e n . A s a re su lt, th e B IA d ism iss e d th e m o tio n to 1 r e o p e n a s u n t i m e l y. I I . A lth o u g h w e h av e jurisdicti o n to rev iew the B IA ’s ord er d en y ing K ey rup an ’s m ot i on t o r eopen, s ee, e. g. , E zea gw una v. A s hcr oft , 325 F. 3d 396, 405 ( 3d C i r . 2003) , t he s cope of ourr evi ew i s qui t e l i m i t ed. I N S v. D oherty , 502 U . S. 314, 323 ( 1992) . U nder th e re g u latio n s, th e B IA “ h a s d isc re tio n to d e n ya m o tio n to re o p e n e v e n if th e p a rty m ovi ng has m ade outa pr i m a fa ci e ca s e forr el i ef. ” 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( a) . A s the Supr eme C our thas s t at ed, the r egul at i ons “pl ai nl ydi s favor ” s uch mot i ons . I N S v. A budu, 485 U . S. 94, 110 ( 1988) . A ccor di ngl y , the C our tr evi ew s the B I A ’ s deni al of a m o tio n to re o p e n f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n w ith “ b ro a d d e f e re n c e ” to its d e c is io n . E z e a g wu n a , 3 2 5 F . 3 d a t4 0 9 . T h u s , i n o r d e rt o s u c c e e d o n th e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w, K eyrupan mustul t i m at el ys how thatthe B I A ’ s di s cr et i onarydeci s i on w as s om ehow arbi tr ary , i r r at i onal , orcontr aryt o l aw . See Ti pu v. I N S, 20 F. 3d 580, 582 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . K eyrupan has fai l ed t o m ake s uch a s how i ng. I I I . K eyrupan does notdi s put e thats he fi l ed an unt i m el ym ot i on t o r eopen. I ns t ead,4

s he ar gues thatherm ot i on s houl d be cons i der ed pur s uantt o one of the exc ept i ons t o t he t i me a n d n u mb e rr e s tr i c t i o n s a p p l i c a b l e t o s u c h mo t i o n s . S e e 8 C. F . R. § 1 0 0 3 . 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) . As m ent i oned above , the B I A found thatK eyrupan w as unabl e t o demonstr at e thatther e had b e e n a “ m a te ri a l c h a n g e in c ir c u m s ta n c e s in In d o n e s ia s in c e th e d a te o f th e la s t h e a ri n g ,” as r equi r ed by8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 3) ( i i ) i n or dert o avoi d appl i cat i on of the t i m e and nu m eri cal l i m i t at i on s. K e yru p a n a rg u e s th a t th e B IA a b u se d its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g th e m o tio n to re o p e n b e c a u se th e e v id e n c e o f c h a n g e d c o n d iti o n s s e t f o rth in h e r m o tio n w a s b o th m a ter ial a n d c o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n d isc o v e re d a t th e p re v io u s h e a rin g . F irst, w e a g re e w ith th e B IA th a t K e yru p a n ’s c h a n g e d p e rso n a l circ u m sta n c e , i. e . the b irth o f h e r so n , is di s t i nctfr om change d ci r cumst ance s ar i s i ng i n I ndones i a. See W ang v. B oar d of Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls, 4 3 7 F .3 d 2 7 0 , 2 7 3 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); se e a lso L iu v . A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, 5 5 5 F .3 d 1 4 5 , 1 5 0 -5 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). R e lief is a p p ro p ria telyd e n ied “ w h e re a p e tit io n e r is s eeki ng t o r eopen [ her ] as y l um cas e due t o ci r cumst ance s ent i r el yof [he r ] ow n m aki ng aft erbei ng or der ed t o l eave the U ni t ed St at es . ” W ang, 437 F. 3d at274. W e f u rth er a g ree w ith the B IA that K ey rup an d id n o t dem o n str ate c h an g ed co u n try condi t i ons i n I ndones i a as r equi r ed bythe r egul at i ons governi ng m ot i ons t o r eopen. T he s ol e documentthatK eyrupan pr oduced w i th herm ot i on i n s uppor tof thi s ar gum ent– a 2 0 0 7 T ra v e l W a rn in g – d o e s n o t d e m o n stra te th a t co n d iti o n s f o r n o n -M u slim s in I ndones i a have s i gni fi cant l ydet er i or at ed s i nce s he w as deni ed as y l um . T he 2007 Tra vel5

W arn ing w arn s o f p o tential terrori st at tack s d ir ec ted a g ains t “A m erican o r oth er W estern c iti z e n s a n d in ter e sts .” T h e w a rn in g d o e s n o t ex ten d to In d o n e sia n c iti z e n s n o r d o e s it di s cus s the tr eatm entof C hi nes e C hr i s t i ans l i vi ng i n I ndones i a. A l though K eyrupan now cl ai m s that“[t ] her e i s no ques t i on thatnone of the evi dence of cha nged ci r cumst ance s w as avai l abl e atthe t i m e of [ her ] i ni t i al hear i ng, ” a r e v i e w o f

th e a d mi n i s tr a t i v e r e c o r d s h o ws th a th e ra t t o rn e ya d v a n c e d e s s e n t i a l l yth e s a me ar gum enti n s uppor tof herA pr i l 2005 appea l t o the B I A . ( See A . R . 58, 62) ( “a tr avel advi s oryfr om ourgovernm entadvi s es A m er i cans t o keep c l earof I ndones i a” a nd “[o] ur governm entbel i eves I ndones i a i s a dange r ous pl ace and has i s s ued tr avel w arni ngs for A m er i cans t o keep a w ay . ”) T her efor e, i ti s cl earthatU ni t ed St at es ci t i zens w er e bei ng w arned abouttr avel t o I ndones i a dur i ng the pende ncyof K eyrupan’ s ear l i erappea l t o the B IA . A c c o rd in g ly , K e yru p a n ’s s o le a rg u m e n t su p p o rtin g h e r m o tio n to re o p e n is o n ly cumul at i ve t o t he pr evi ous pr ocee di ngs . Fur therm or e, even i f the 2007 Tra vel W arni ng d e sc rib e d in c re a se d risk f o r U n ited S tate s c iti z e n s tra v e lin g to In d o n e sia a s c o m p a re d to e a rlier w a rn in g s, su c h in f o rm a tio n a lo n e w o u ld n o t am o u n t to a m a ter ial c h a n g e in cou ntrycon dit i on s. H av ing fo u n d n o ab u se o f d iscreti o n o n the p art of the B IA in d en y ing K ey rup an ’s u n tim e ly f

ile d m o tio n to re o p e n , w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .