Najmabadi v. Holder (3/9)

**MTR, changed country conditions, Iran**

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Najmabadi’s motion to reopen. The BIA considered Najmabadi’s motion to be premised on the fact that circumstances in Iran have significantly declined since her hearing, and as a result she has a viable claim of persecution based on direct and imputed political opinion, and the fact that she is a ‘westernized woman.’ The BIA correctly held that the evidence submitted by Najmabadi in her motion to reopen, which established the existence of torture and punishment for dissenters, was in evidence at the prior hearing. The evidence addressed general conditions affecting the population at large, and was not linked to Najmabadi’s “particular circumstances.” There was also no evidence, which fell “outside the realm of speculation,” that established that “returnees from the United States will likely face persecution.” Najmabadi’s failed to introduce previously unavailable, material evidence– it was not “qualitatively different” from that submitted at her initial asylum hearing. The evidence Najmabadi presents in her motion to reopen does not share an individualized relevancy. There is no indication that the Board failed to credit Najmabadi’s affidavit, as it characterized her motion as premised on her “direct and imputed political opinion, and the fact that she is a ‘westernized woman’ ” and specifically referenced both Iran’s “limitations on the freedoms of women” and its punishment of dissenters. In addition, even assuming that Najmabadi is a member of a disfavored group, she points to no evidence of an individualizedthreat to persecute her.
Dissent: Pregurson
Najmabadi should be granted the chance to reopen her case to provide evidence regarding the persecution of individuals returned from the West to Iran.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/03/09/05-72401.pdf