FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TAJADDIN RAFAIL ALIYEV, No. 19-72701 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A098-516-120 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, OPINION Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 17, 2020* San Francisco, California Filed August 24, 2020 Before: Susan P. Graber, Richard C. Tallman, and Richard R. Clifton, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Graber * The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 ALIYEV V. BARR SUMMARY** Immigration Granting Tajaddin Aliyev’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision denying his second motion to reopen asylum proceedings based on changed country conditions, and remanding, the panel held that the Board abused its discretion by determining that a non-citizen who seeks to reopen an earlier application for relief, and attaches that application to the motion, has failed to attach the “appropriate application for relief” as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). Aliyev sought to reopen proceedings for consideration of the same basis for asylum relief he asserted in his original asylum application—political opinion—in light of changed country conditions. The panel explained that the plain and unambiguous text of § 1003.2(c)(1) does not require someone in Aliyev’s shoes to attach a new application for relief to a motion to reopen. Rather, it requires that a non-citizen who moves to reopen proceedings “for the purpose of submitting an application for relief” attach to that motion the “appropriate application for relief.” In this circumstance, the panel concluded that the “appropriate application for relief” was Aliyev’s original asylum application, which he attached to and referenced throughout his motion. In a concurrently filed memorandum disposition, the panel addressed how the Board erred by concluding, in the ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. ALIYEV V. BARR 3 alternative, that Aliyev did not show the changed country conditions necessary to avoid 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)’s time and number bars on his second motion to reopen, and also addressed two other petitions arising from Aliyev’s journey through the immigration courts. COUNSEL Corrine Nikolenko, Nashia, New Hampshire; Michael W. Schoenleber, Schoenleber & Waltermire PC, Sacramento, California; for Petitioner. Joseph Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Virginia Lum, Trial Attorney; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Nancy Friedman, Senior Litigation Counsel, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Respondent. OPINION GRABER, Circuit Judge: Petitioner Tajaddin Aliyev, a native of the Soviet Union and a citizen of Azerbaijan, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his second motion to reopen his asylum proceedings. Relying on 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1), which requires that a non-citizen attach the “appropriate application for relief” to a motion to reopen, the BIA denied Petitioner’s motion because he did not attach a new asylum application to it. Petitioner did, however, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals