FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 17 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALMA MEDRANO-LOPEZ; DAYANA No. 15-71203 ASCENCIO-MEDRANO; RANCES ASCENCIO-MEDRANO, Agency Nos. A088-038-054 A088-038-055 Petitioners, A088-038-058 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 11, 2018 Pasadena, California Before: ROGERS,** BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Petitioners Alma Medrano Lopez, Dayana Ascencio Medrano, and Rances Ascensio Medrano (“Petitioners”) seek review of the Board of Immigration * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable John M. Rogers, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their motion to reopen their asylum and withholding of removal proceedings. The BIA concluded that Petitioners’ motion to reopen, filed more than three years after the BIA’s previous decision in their case, did not fall within the exceptions to the 90–day time limitation for motions to reopen. The BIA held that Petitioners’ new evidence was insufficient to establish materially changed country conditions in El Salvador and that Petitioners had not established a prima facie case for the relief sought. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we grant the petition for review. The denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and “the BIA abuses its discretion when its denial is ‘arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.’” Agonafer v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1203 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002)). The BIA must accept the facts asserted by a petitioner in a motion to reopen as true unless they are “inherently unbelievable,” and the BIA “must show proper consideration of all factors, both favorable and unfavorable, in determining whether to grant a motion to reopen and must articulate its reasons for denying such a motion.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “While the BIA ‘does not have to write an exegesis on every contention,’ it is required to ‘consider the issues raised, and announce its decision 2 in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.’” Id. at 1206–07 (quoting Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 807 n.6 (9th Cir. 2004)). The BIA’s denial, explained in a single paragraph of analysis, is an abuse of discretion. Although Petitioners’ claims for asylum and withholding of removal were denied by the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) for failure to show a nexus to a protected ground, the IJ determined that Petitioners had met the greater burden under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) by showing that it was more likely than not that they would be tortured upon removal. These factual findings were not disturbed by the BIA’s determination that Petitioners’ ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals