FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 16 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MUSTAFA HUSSAIN, No. 15-72170 Petitioner, Agency No. A099-875-114 v. MEMORANDUM* MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 14, 2018** San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, M. SMITH, Circuit Judge, and BUCKLO,*** District Judge. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation. Mustafa Hussain petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) denial of his applications for asylum. Because the BIA cited Matter of Burbano and provided its own review of the evidence and the law, we review the decisions of both the immigration judge and the BIA. Ali v. Holder, 637 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2011). In this case, the immigration judge concluded that Hussain had established past persecution, but that the presumption of future persecution was rebutted by changed country conditions, namely that “the political atmosphere in Pakistan has evolved in favor of the [Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz] party” of which Hussain was a member. We may take judicial notice of a post-briefing change in country conditions in the context of deciding whether to remand.1 Gafoor v. I.N.S., 231 F.3d 645, 655-57 (9th Cir. 2000) (ordering a remand to the BIA after taking judicial notice, sua sponte, of “dramatic foreign developments” ). Here, we take judicial notice of the fact that country conditions in Pakistan have changed in that the Nawaz party now holds considerably less political power in Pakistan. Because the immigration judge’s decision was founded upon the contrary assumption, we must remand for the BIA to determine on an open record in the first instance whether the changed country conditions in Pakistan continue to rebut Hussain’s well-founded fear of 1 Petitioner’s motion for judicial notice is granted. 2 future persecution and affect Hussain’s ability to relocate within Pakistan. See I.N.S. v. Orlando-Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 17-18 (2002). PETITION GRANTED AND REMANDED. 3 15-72170 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Mustafa Hussain v. Matthew Whitaker 16 November 2018 Agency Unpublished 7df50f3b6ce90e54ab6d5a01f4baee03fe0b2bf9
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals