Bilal Qamar v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 2 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BILAL QAMAR, No. 14-73865 Petitioner, Agency No. A075-648-505 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted June 8, 2018 Pasadena, California Before: FISHER and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and SHEA,** District Judge. Petitioner Bilal Qamar, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision finding him ineligible for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and denying * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Edward F. Shea, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation. his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on changed country conditions.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we grant the petition for review and remand for consideration of political developments that have occurred in Pakistan since the BIA’s decision. Qamar moves the court to take judicial notice of a January 7, 2015 news article titled “Sipah-e-Sahaba Militants Executed at the New Central Jail Multan.” Generally, this court reviews out-of-record evidence only “where (1) the Board considers the evidence; or the Board abuses its discretion by failing to consider such evidence upon the motion of an applicant.” Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 964 (9th Cir. 1996). We may, however, take judicial notice of evidence of “dramatic foreign developments” that was “not available when the BIA made its decision.” Gafoor v. INS, 231 F.3d 645, 656 (9th Cir. 2000). In Gafoor, we took judicial notice of a military coup in Fiji that occurred after the BIA’s decision. The coup placed the petitioner at a particular and heightened risk of racial violence, and we remanded for the agency to determine the impact of Fiji’s changed political circumstances. We explained that because we 1 The Immigration Judge denied Qamar’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal, finding that Qamar’s participation in the Sunni organization Sipah-e-Sahaba (“SSP”) constituted “terrorist activity” and rendered him statutorily ineligible for either form of relief. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(v), 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(I), 1231(b)(3)(B)(iv). Qamar has not appealed that finding, and it is not before us today. 2 14-73865 “simply introduced into the record facts that were not available earlier,” we did not “diminish agency control over the case” or “usurp the authority of the administrative agency.” Id. Indeed, we remanded precisely because the agency was better equipped to conduct the necessary factual inquiry. Here, Qamar submits a news article explaining that on January 7, 2015, two Sipah-e-Sahaba (“SSP”) members were hanged after being charged and convicted of murder in 1998 and 2000. The article further describes that Pakistan — only days after the BIA rendered its decision in Qamar’s case — lifted its complete moratorium on execution ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals