Medhanie Ghebresillasie v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 28 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MEDHANIE TECLE GHEBRESILLASIE, No. 14-73427 Petitioner, Agency No. A075-261-317 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 February 8, 2018 Seattle, Washington Before: FISHER, GOULD, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. Medhanie Tecle Ghebresillasie, a native and citizen of Eritrea, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen as untimely. Because the BIA abused its discretion in concluding that Ghebresillasie did not present sufficient evidence of changed country conditions to establish his prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), we grant the petition. Ghebresillasie and his mother, M.G., left Eritrea for the United States in 1995, when Ghebresillasie was ten years old. In 1996, M.G. submitted an application for asylum and withholding of removal, listing Ghebresillasie as a minor derivative. In 2004, Ghebresillasie submitted his own application for relief but continued to rely on the evidence submitted in support of his mother’s application. In October 2004, the immigration judge (“IJ”) held a hearing and denied both applications, but granted M.G. adjustment of status on the basis of an immigrant petition filed by her daughter, a United States citizen. The BIA affirmed and adopted the IJ’s decision in relevant part, and we dismissed in part and denied in part Ghebresillasie’s petition for review. Ghebresillasie v. Holder, 313 F. App’x 992, 993–94 (9th Cir. 2009). On August 4, 2014, Ghebresillasie filed a motion to reopen his immigration proceeding on the basis of changed country conditions and to stay removal. The BIA denied the motion, and Ghebresillasie timely filed a petition for review. “We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion.” Agonafer v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1203 (9th Cir. 2017). “[T]he BIA abuses its discretion when its denial is ‘arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.’” Id. (quoting Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002)). “In 2 considering a motion to reopen, the BIA must accept as true the facts asserted by the petitioner, unless they are ‘inherently unbelievable.’” Id. (quoting Limsico v. INS, 951 F.2d 210, 213 (9th Cir. 1991)). Generally, an undocumented immigrant must file a motion to reopen within ninety days of the final administrative removal order. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The ninety-day deadline, however, does not apply if the motion to reopen is “based on changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality or in the country to which deportation has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § ...

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