FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HUI RAN MU, Nos. 16-71292 Petitioner, 16-73561 v. Agency No. A056-496-104 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. OPINION On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted May 14, 2019 Portland, Oregon Filed September 4, 2019 Before: N. Randy Smith, Paul J. Watford, and Ryan D. Nelson, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge N.R. Smith 2 MU V. BARR SUMMARY* Immigration Granting in part and denying in part Hui Ran Mu’s petitions for review of decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the panel held that derivative beneficiaries of an alien entrepreneur in the immigrant investor program (EB-5 program), who receive conditional legal permanent residence status, have the right to seek review of the denial of the I-829 petition to remove the conditions on their permanent residence status and, therefore, the agency erred in not reviewing the denial of Mu’s father’s petition. When Mu’s father was granted conditional lawful permanent residence as an EB-5 investor, Mu and her mother (who is not a party to this case) were granted conditional lawful permanent residence as derivative beneficiaries. Mu’s father submitted an I-829 petition to remove the conditions on their permanent residence, but the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service denied the petition and terminated the family’s conditional status. The family was then placed in removal proceedings, and Mu’s father was later removed in absentia. After the immigration judge ordered Mu removed to China, Mu appealed to the BIA, arguing that the IJ erred in failing to review the denial of the I-829 petition. However, the BIA concluded that only the principal petitioner (Mu’s father) * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. MU V. BARR 3 could seek review of the denial of the I-829 petition before the IJ. The panel held that the plain language of 8 U.S.C. § 1186b(c)(3)(D)—which provides that “any alien” whose conditional permanent resident status has been terminated after the denial of an I-829 petition may request review of such determination in a removal proceeding—unambiguously establishes that Congress did not intend to limit such review to the alien entrepreneur. Thus, the panel concluded that the agency erred in not reviewing the denial of her father’s petition. The panel also concluded that the agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Mu’s request for a continuance, explaining that, although the BIA did not expressly address the factors set forth in Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2009), the IJ sufficiently outlined why good cause did not exist, and the BIA relied on the IJ’s reasons in concluding that the denial was not clearly erroneous. Finally, the panel concluded that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mu’s motion to reconsider. The panel rejected Mu’s assertion that the BIA should have considered new evidence she submitted on appeal, explaining that ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals