The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against Sylviana Chandra and her husband in their attempt to reopen immigration proceedings. This decision, filed on October 28, 2026, affects the couple's legal status in the United States and highlights the challenges faced by many immigrants navigating the U.S. immigration system.

The ruling came after the couple, both natives of Indonesia, petitioned for a review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) order that denied their motion to reopen removal proceedings. The court's decision underscores the complexities of immigration law and the high standards that petitioners must meet to succeed in such cases.

Background

Sylviana Chandra and her husband are citizens of Indonesia who have been involved in immigration proceedings in the United States. The couple sought to reopen their removal proceedings after the BIA issued a decision that they believed was incorrect. Their case reached the Ninth Circuit after they filed a petition for review of the BIA's order denying their motion.

The BIA's decision to deny the motion to reopen was based on the couple's failure to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate their eligibility for relief. The couple's petition was also considered untimely and number-barred, meaning they had already exceeded the limits set by immigration law for filing such motions. This situation is not uncommon for many immigrants who may struggle to meet the stringent requirements of the U.S. immigration system.

The Ruling

The Ninth Circuit ultimately denied the Chandra couple's petition for review in part and dismissed it in part. The court ruled that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the untimely motion to reopen, stating, "An applicant must demonstrate that the new evidence, when considered together with the evidence presented at the original hearing, would establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought." The court emphasized that the couple failed to establish this eligibility.

Furthermore, the court noted that it could only review the BIA's decision regarding sua sponte reopening for legal or constitutional errors. After reviewing the case, the court found no such errors in the BIA's determination. This ruling reflects the high burden of proof that petitioners must meet in immigration cases, especially when seeking to reopen proceedings.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for the Chandra couple and others in similar situations. It highlights the difficulties many immigrants face when trying to navigate the complexities of the U.S. immigration system. The decision also reinforces the importance of adhering to deadlines and procedural requirements in immigration cases, as failure to do so can result in the denial of relief.

Moreover, the ruling may serve as a cautionary tale for other immigrants considering similar motions to reopen their cases. The Ninth Circuit's decision underscores the need for strong evidence and a clear demonstration of eligibility for relief, which can be a daunting task for many individuals seeking to remain in the United States.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether the Chandra couple plans to appeal this decision or if there are any related cases pending. However, the ruling does indicate that the couple's current options for relief are limited, given the court's findings.