Opinion ID: 2645211
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The BIA’s Errors

Text: We first address Indradjaja’s contention that the BIA abused its discretion by rejecting her evidentiary submission because it was not accompanied by a sworn statement from her. She argues that the BIA misinterpreted the law governing motions to reopen because no such requirement exists. As explained below, we agree. 15 The BIA did not cite any rule or authority that requires motions to reopen to be accompanied by a sworn statement from the immigrant. Instead, the BIA concluded that, because “no affidavit or sworn statement by [Indradjaja was] submitted[,] . . . the relevance of the submitted material concerning recent country conditions since the respondent’s hearing ha[d] not been shown.” App’x 3. It explained that, without a sworn statement, it would not consider the evidence because it “c[ould not] be sure who is advancing the claims.” Id. In its view, this deficiency was not cured by the brief Indradjaja’s attorney submitted along with the materials because “statements by counsel do not constitute evidence.” Id. Defending the BIA’s decision, the government argues that the BIA correctly denied Indradjaja’s motion because the relevant regulation requires that Indradjaja submit an affidavit “explaining how the newly proffered evidence relates to her.” Brief for the Government 14. But the regulation requires only that “[a] motion to reopen . . . be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (emphasis added). It does not mandate that any affidavit be submitted, let alone require one specifically from the petitioner. 16 The government also maintains that the BIA did not abuse its discretion because, due to her failure to submit an affidavit, it was not clear how the evidence regarding objective country conditions was relevant to her particular case. But this argument fails because the relevance of the submitted materials is obvious within the context of this case. Indradjaja submitted an expert affidavit that described both the country conditions and their relevance to her claims. Not only does this affidavit satisfy the terms of the regulation, Indradjaja’s decision to submit Dr. Winters’ affidavit rather than her own sworn statement is also logical since Indradjaja, who had not been to Indonesia during the period in question, would have had no personal knowledge of changes that had occurred in her absence. Additionally, a sworn statement is not necessary to understand the relevance of the articles that Indradjaja submitted describing conditions for Chinese Christians in Indonesia generally. Although the articles do not refer to Indradjaja specifically, the BIA must consider them in the context of the evidence already submitted by Indradjaja at her prior hearing. See Ke Zhen Zhao, 265 F.3d at 97 (“[W]hen faced with a motion to reopen, the Board has an obligation to consider the record as a whole.”). The record in this case leaves no room for 17 doubt about the significance of Indradjaja’s evidentiary submission: she testified at her hearing that she is an ethnic Chinese Christian who frequently engaged in proselytizing while living in Indonesia. Given this testimony, it is clear that Indradjaja’s submission showing increased violence against Chinese Christians provided an additional reason that she feared persecution in the future. Moreover, a key reason that the IJ denied Indradjaja relief in her original hearing was the IJ’s finding that Indradjaja had not demonstrated that attacks on Christians were part of a pattern or practice. Thus, the expert affidavit, articles, and reports documenting increased attacks against Chinese Christians in Indonesia are plainly relevant to Indradjaja’s pattern and practice claim and thus to her motion to reopen. Her decision not to submit an affidavit on her own behalf did nothing to undermine that. Accordingly, we find that the BIA abused its discretion by rejecting her evidentiary submission simply because it was not accompanied by a sworn statement from Indradjaja. Second, we turn to the BIA’s alternative holding: that it would have denied Indradjaja’s motion in any case because the evidence submitted would not have changed the outcome of her case. This decision, however, was not informed by perhaps the most critical piece of evidence presented by Indradjaja 18 since the BIA discounted, almost entirely, Dr. Winters’ affidavit. In the BIA’s analysis, the Winters affidavit was “given little, if any, weight” because “the primary source material cited and discussed by Dr. Winters [was] not . . . furnished with the . . . motion” and therefore the BIA was “unable to independently assess his statements and conclusions, and their relevance to the respondent’s request for reopening.” App’x 3. Indradjaja argues that the BIA abused its discretion in refusing to consider the Winters affidavit and, again, we agree. Indeed, the government has been unable to identify a single case in which the BIA declined to consider (or devalued) an expert affidavit simply because the expert did not provide copies of the primary sources on which he or she relied. Nor does the government point to a regulation, rule, or any other form of notice that would have apprised litigants that experts must submit such documentation. Furthermore, the BIA’s treatment of Winters’ affidavit is inconsistent with the way that expert testimony is generally treated. See Fed. R. Evid. 703 (permitting an expert opinion to be based on facts or data that experts in the field would “reasonably rely on . . . in forming an opinion on the subject” without regard to the admissibility of the underlying material and without requiring that the 19 material be submitted); Iacobelli Constr., Inc. v. County of Monroe, 32 F.3d 19, 25 (2d Cir. 1994) (“An affidavit stating the facts upon which the expert’s opinion is based satisfies rule 56(e) even if the data supporting the facts is not attached.”). Nor can we approve of the way that the BIA imposed such a rule on the petitioner. We are sympathetic to the government’s argument that providing copies of sources on which experts rely would aid the BIA in efficiently resolving cases. However, the BIA could have simply requested those sources from the expert or the litigant, as judges often do. We have long required IJs to request additional information if necessary to ensure an adequate understanding of the claims, see Ming Shi Xue v. BIA, 439 F.3d 111, 122–23 (2d Cir. 2006), in keeping with our view that “it is imperative that [such] claims be adjudicated in a fair and reasoned way.” Yuanling Liu v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 455 F.3d 106, 117 (2d Cir. 2006). The BIA may establish a new rule that requires that sources be appended to expert affidavits but, in the absence of such a rule, it was an abuse of discretion to impose such a requirement without notice to the parties or an opportunity to respond. It follows that the BIA’s improper discounting of Winters’ affidavit undermines its rationale for denying Indradjaja’s motion to reopen, and we 20 therefore remand the case to the BIA for further consideration in light of this opinion. We note, in passing, that the BIA’s analysis of Indradjaja’s remaining evidence also raises concerns. After discounting the Winters affidavit, the BIA rejected the additional reports and articles that Indradjaja submitted as insufficient to justify reopening the proceedings. We expect that the BIA, when adjudicating motions to reopen, will “demonstrate that it has considered [the immigrant’s] evidence.” Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir. 2006). Here, “[g]iven the brevity of the BIA’s decision on this point, questions arise as to its sufficiency.” Id. Those questions are particularly troubling here in light of the BIA’s proffered reason for rejecting two of the articles submitted by Indradjaja—that those articles were irrelevant because they discussed Ahmadiyya Muslims when Indradjaja is a Christian. However, the articles in fact addressed discrimination against and mistreatment of both Ahmadiyya Muslims and Christians. Therefore, the BIA’s treatment of those articles suggests that the BIA may not have given those articles the full consideration due to them, which itself may provide cause for remand. See Poradisova v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 70, 81 (2d Cir. 2005) (“IJs and the BIA have a duty to explicitly consider any country conditions 21 evidence submitted by an applicant that materially bears on his claim. A similar, if not greater, duty arises in the context of motions to reopen based on changed country conditions.”). Ultimately, we need not reach this issue because the BIA will have the opportunity to consider all of the evidence on remand.3 Immigration law is complex and the consequences of deportation are harsh, Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 360, 369 (2010), particularly in the context of persecution‐based claims. We remand this case mindful of the fact that “we must always remember the toll that is paid if and when we err” because “each time we wrongly deny a meritorious asylum application . . . we risk condemning an individual to persecution.” Ming Shi Xue, 439 F.3d at 114. 3 Indradjaja has also argued on appeal that the BIA erred by finding that she had not suffered past persecution. As discussed above, the BIA treated this argument as a motion to reconsider and denied that motion because it was untimely and failed to raise any legal arguments that could not have been raised in the earlier proceedings. Indradjaja does not challenge the BIA’s characterization of her motion to reconsider as untimely and therefore has forfeited any argument that the BIA improperly denied her motion to reconsider. See United States v. Quiroz, 22 F.3d 489, 490 (2d Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (“It is well established that an argument not raised on appeal is deemed abandoned.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 22