The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition for review from Hendra Ko, an Indonesian national who sought to reopen his asylum case based on his conversion to Christianity and alleged changed country conditions in Indonesia.
Ko, a native and citizen of Indonesia, initially applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Immigration authorities denied these applications, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed that denial in a 2016 decision. After converting to Christianity following the rejection of his initial applications, Ko filed a motion to reopen his case with the BIA, arguing that changed country conditions in Indonesia warranted reconsideration.
The BIA dismissed Ko's motion to reopen, prompting him to petition the Ninth Circuit for review. In his petition, Ko claimed he would face persecution for his Christian beliefs if returned to Indonesia. The case was submitted to a three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Graber, Clifton, and Johnstone on Feb. 2, 2026.
The appeals court applied the standard of review for motions to reopen, which requires showing that the BIA abused its discretion in denying the motion. Under this standard, established in cases like Tzompantzi-Salazar v. Garland, courts review whether the immigration board's decision was arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.
Motions to reopen immigration proceedings face strict requirements under federal immigration law. Petitioners must typically demonstrate that new evidence was not available at the time of the original hearing and that this evidence would likely change the outcome of the case. For asylum cases specifically, petitioners may argue that changed country conditions in their home country have created new grounds for protection.
In Ko's case, the central question was whether conditions for Christians in Indonesia had deteriorated sufficiently since his original application to warrant reopening his asylum proceedings. Religious minorities, including Christians, have faced various challenges in Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim-majority nation. However, the specific circumstances of Ko's case and the evidence he presented regarding changed conditions were not detailed in the court's brief memorandum.
The Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction over the case stems from federal immigration law, which grants courts of appeals authority to review final orders of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. This statute provides the framework for judicial review of immigration decisions, though it includes various limitations on what types of orders can be appealed.
The court's decision was issued as a memorandum disposition, meaning it is not designated for publication and does not serve as precedential authority except in limited circumstances under Ninth Circuit rules. This type of decision is common for immigration cases where the legal principles are well-established and the case turns primarily on factual determinations.
The panel determined that oral arguments were not necessary, concluding unanimously that the case was suitable for decision based on the written submissions. This procedural determination reflects the court's assessment that the legal issues were straightforward and did not require additional advocacy from the parties.
Ko's case illustrates the challenges faced by individuals who convert to Christianity or other religions after initial immigration proceedings. Such conversions can complicate asylum claims, as immigration authorities must determine whether the conversion is sincere and whether it creates a genuine risk of persecution in the home country.
The denial of Ko's petition means that the BIA's dismissal of his motion to reopen stands. This effectively closes his current avenue for challenging the denial of his asylum applications, though other potential avenues for relief may remain depending on his specific circumstances.
For religious converts seeking asylum protection, the case demonstrates the importance of presenting compelling evidence of both sincere conversion and changed country conditions. Immigration courts require substantial documentation to support claims that conditions in a home country have deteriorated sufficiently to warrant reopening previously denied cases.
The decision also reflects the broader challenges faced by asylum seekers in demonstrating eligibility for protection. Even when individuals face genuine fears of persecution, they must navigate complex legal standards and procedural requirements that can make relief difficult to obtain.
Ko's case was assigned Agency No. A088-322-623 and federal case number 18-71140, indicating it has been proceeding through the immigration and federal court systems for several years. The lengthy timeline is typical of complex immigration cases that proceed through multiple levels of review.
The Ninth Circuit's decision represents the final stage of judicial review for Ko's motion to reopen, unless he pursues further appeals or identifies other grounds for challenging his removal order.