Simbolon

Simbolon v. Holder

Good Law
339 F. App'x 712
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 20, 2009No. 05-73179California336 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Simbolon’s petition, with respect to his motion to reopen, is denied. Simbolon failed to establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought, see Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir.2003), and did not state any new facts, “supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material,” which could be proven at a new hearing. 8 C.F.R. § 1008.2 (c)(1); see also INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104 , 108 S.Ct. 904 , 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988). The evidence submitted by Simbolon with his motion to reopen does not support his assertions, namely, that Islamic extremists are targeting Westerners on account of the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami because, Simbolon claims, they did so after Krakatoa erupted in 1883. The Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) finding that Simbolon was ineligible for asylum also establishes that he could not demonstrate a prima facie case for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003). Simbolon failed to present any facts which would entitle him to relief on any other grounds.

On appeal, Simbolon asserts for the first time that his previous counsel was ineffective in representing him before the immigration judge and the…

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.