Anagaw v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Anagaw v. Gonzales

236 F. App'x 304

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 6, 2007

DocketNo. 05-72603

StatusPublished

This text of 236 F. App'x 304 (Anagaw v. Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anagaw v. Gonzales, 236 F. App'x 304 (9th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Sirak Deneke Anagaw, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on changed country conditions. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004), we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

The BIA abused its discretion in denying Anagaw’s motion to reopen on the ground that he failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in Ethiopia. If taken as true, the arrest warrant Anagaw submitted with his motion to reopen demonstrates a “reasonable likelihood” that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Malty, 381 F.3d at 947. Because motions to reopen are decided without a factual hearing, credibility findings are not appropriate, see Ghadessi v. INS, 797 F.2d 804, 806-07 (9th Cir.1986) (faulting BIA for weighing quality, rather than sufficiency, of evidence in a motion to reopen), and the fact that the arrest warrant was not certified in accordance with regulation is not conclusive, see Khan v. INS, 237 F.3d 1143, 1144 (9th Cir.2001) (agency erred by excluding evidence on the ground that it did not comply with 8 C.F.R. § 287.6).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Sirak Deneke Anagaw, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on changed country conditions. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004), we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

The BIA abused its discretion in denying Anagaw’s motion to reopen on the ground that he failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in Ethiopia. If taken as true, the arrest warrant Anagaw submitted with his motion to reopen demonstrates a “reasonable likelihood” that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Malty, 381 F.3d at 947. Because motions to reopen are decided without a factual hearing, credibility findings are not appropriate, see Ghadessi v. INS, 797 F.2d 804, 806-07 (9th Cir.1986) (faulting BIA for weighing quality, rather than sufficiency, of evidence in a motion to reopen), and the fact that the arrest warrant was not certified in accordance with regulation is not conclusive, see Khan v. INS, 237 F.3d 1143, 1144 (9th Cir.2001) (agency erred by excluding evidence on the ground that it did not comply with 8 C.F.R. § 287.6).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 F. App'x 304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anagaw-v-gonzales-ca9-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack