NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 7 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAMZAN ALI CHAUDHRY, No. 20-70482 Petitioner, Agency No. A072-175-541 v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 12, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: NGUYEN and COLLINS, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,*** District Judge. Dissent by Judge COLLINS. Ramzan Ali Chaudhry, a citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under § 242 of the Immigration and * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). *** The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1252. In light of intervening decisions by this court and the Attorney General, we grant the petition and remand for further proceedings. The BIA relied on He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2007), to conclude that Chaudhry failed to show changed circumstances in Pakistan, his country of origin, that would allow the BIA to consider his otherwise untimely motion to reopen. He held that a self-induced change in the petitioner’s personal circumstances—there the birth of two of the petitioners’ children in the United States, which caused the petitioners to be in violation of longstanding population control policies in place in China, their country of origin—cannot satisfy the changed country circumstances exception. Id. at 1132. The BIA determined that Chaudhry’s circumstances are indistinguishable from He because Chaudhry alleges only a change in his personal circumstances, namely that his wife’s former in-laws in Pakistan became aware of her marriage to him and threatened to kill him if he returns. After the BIA’s decision, however, we clarified in Kaur v. Garland, 2 F.4th 823 (9th Cir. 2021), that He is inapplicable when the changed circumstances, even if personal to the petitioner, occur in the country of origin and are beyond the petitioner’s control. Id. at 830-31. We thus held that the death of the petitioner’s husband in India and her in-laws’ ensuing threats to kill her if she returned were 2 changed circumstances in India that she did not “volitionally change or affect.” Id. at 831. Similar to the petitioner in Kaur, and unlike the petitioners in He, Chaudhry faces changed circumstances in his country of origin—the death threat from his wife’s former in-laws in Pakistan—and those circumstances appear beyond Chaudhry’s control, thus alleviating any concern of gamesmanship. See He, 501 F.3d at 1131-32 (noting policy concern that a petitioner will “gam[e] the system” by altering circumstances within his control (quoting Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 274 (2d Cir. 2006))). …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals