Anis Shokri Salama Malty v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General

Good Law
381 F.3d 942·2004 WL 1908181·2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 18240
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 27, 200403-70069California2,398 words

Opinion

Opinion

Reinhardt, J.

Anis Shokri Salama Malty (“Malty”), a native and citizen of Egypt and a Coptic Christian, appeals from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reopen his asylum and withholding of deportation proceedings on the basis of changed circumstances in Egypt. We conclude that the BIA erred in determining that Malty has not established changed country circumstances sufficient to reopen his case pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 3.2 (c)(2) (now codified at 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2)).

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Malty filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal in March of 1992. In his asylum hearing, which was held in 1997, Malty testified that in high school and college he was taunted by Islamic classmates and teachers because of his Christianity. He finished college from home in order to avoid the persistent harassment, but was subsequently unable to obtain employment as an accountant because of religious discrimination. Malty also testified that he and his family received menacing telephone calls from Islamic militants.

An immigration judge denied Malty’s petition in July of 1997. The IJ acknowledged that Malty had “difficulties” in Egypt but…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.