Plaintiff Nency Nency, an Indonesian citizen, filed a motion to review the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals on the grounds that the situation in Indonesia has changed to her detriment. Specifically, Nency claimed that violence in Indonesia against Christians has been on the rise.
The court found: "The question on a motion to reopen is not whether conditions are poor, but rather whether they have changed. 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Matter of S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (BIA 2007)." Because BIA reasonably concluded that the mistreatment of Christians has been a longstanding problem in Indonesia and not a changed circumstance, the court denied the motion.
In the BIA proceeding, plaintiff supplied her own affidavit regarding violence against Christians in Indonesia, together with media reports. The court found that the BIA acted reasonably in ignoring the affidavit, as the plaintiff is not an expert in the human rights condition in Indonesia.
Immigration is one of the primary ways in which Asian parties find themselves in the United States courts. When they do find themselves in the court--as opposed to the administrative process in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services--they generally do not fare well. As can be seen in this case, the parties (who are usually individuals without the financial means) lack the practical wherewithal to meet the evidentiary burden.