Review of Hartono Djokro and William Djokro’s Immigration Appeals: A Legal Analysis

In August 2023, Hartono Djokro and his son, William Djokro, sought review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (B.I.A.) denying their second untimely motion to reopen their removal proceedings. This blog provides an overview of their case and the legal reasoning behind the denial of their petition.

Background

Hartono Djokro and his child, William Djokro, are citizens of Indonesia who arrived in the United States as nonimmigrant guests in 2006 and 2007, respectively, and did not depart before their visas expired. In December 2007, Hartono Djokro submitted a request for asylum, a stay of deportation, and safeguards under the Convention Against Torture (C.A.T.), including his son as a secondary applicant. They both indicated their identity as Chinese Indonesians and Catholics, asserting that they faced persecution in Indonesia.

On March 28, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (D.H.S.) accused them of being subject to removal under section 237(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (I.N.A.), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B), due to their visa overstay. An immigration judge (IJ) rejected their requests for asylum, a stay of deportation, and C.A.T. protection in November 2009, citing several reasons, including their inability to prove past persecution or a history of persecution against the Chinese community or Christians in Indonesia, along with inadequate evidence showing the Indonesian government's involvement or negligence in preventing persecution.

The applicants contested the ruling with the Board of Immigration Appeals (B.I.A.), which affirmed the I.J.'s decision in March 2012. Their initial request to reopen the case was rejected in February 2013, with the B.I.A. determining that the request was submitted too late and did not provide adequate evidence of changed conditions in the country as mandated by 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).

Second Motion to Reopen

On July 26, 2021, Hartono and William Djokro filed a second motion to reopen, citing alleged deteriorating conditions for Christians in Indonesia. They supplemented this motion in May 2023. However, the B.I.A. denied the motion in August 2023, deeming it untimely and number-barred and finding insufficient evidence to meet the requirements for an exception to late filing based on changed country conditions.

Legal Analysis

• Inadequate Evidence of Changed Circumstances: The Board determined that the documentation submitted, which included reports from 2017 and 2018, required updates and needed more relevance for a motion made in 2021. Furthermore, more current evidence did not show a notable deterioration in the circumstances for Christians in Indonesia compared to the conditions at their 2009 hearing. The Board observed that government initiatives aimed at safeguarding religious minorities and combating radical Islamist factions were ongoing, and the violence and rhetoric mentioned by the applicants were akin to earlier situations.
• Inability to Demonstrate a Prima Facie Case: The applicants failed to establish an individual risk of persecution necessary to prove eligibility for asylum or withhold removal. The B.I.A. distinguished this case from Sihotang v. Sessions, which involved an evangelical Christian who faced heightened risks due to proselytizing. Hartono and William Djokro did not claim similar religious practices that would expose them to increased danger.

Conclusion

The B.I.A.'s decision to deny the second motion to reopen was upheld, as the petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence of changed country conditions and did not establish a prima facie case for relief. The court deferred to the B.I.A.'s discretion, finding no error in evaluating evidence or legal reasoning. This case underscores the stringent requirements for reopening immigration proceedings based on changed conditions and the high burden on petitioners to demonstrate eligibility for relief.

The petition for review of the B.I.A.'s decision was thus denied, reaffirming the standards and procedures governing immigration appeals and motions to reopen.

The Allied Outsourcing, a reputable company specializing in law-related services, offers various options customized to meet its customers' requirements. With highly proficient lawyers and legal experts, The Allied Outsourcing takes pride in providing excellent legal help across different areas, such as contract law, intangible property privileges, business management, and regulatory conformity.

The company's dedication to superiority and customer contentment is apparent in its thorough method for each situation, guaranteeing careful research, strategic assessment, and productive representation. Utilizing state-of-the-art technology and industry knowledge, The Allied Outsourcing consistently provides timely and cost-efficient options, empowering customers to manage challenging legal problems confidently and triumphantly.

Whether drafting contracts, supporting lawsuits, or offering regulatory advice, The Allied Outsourcing is a dependable partner, delivering reliable legal guidance and assistance to companies and organizations worldwide.