Nabil Hannalla v. Eric H. Holder Jr. ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 02 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NABIL DAWOD HANNALLA; et al., No. 09-70306
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A095-291-683
A095-291-684
v. A095-291-685
A095-291-686
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent. MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2011 **
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Nabil Dawod Hannalla and his family, natives and citizens of Egypt, petition
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their
motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §
1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 2003). We grant the petition for
review, and remand for further proceedings.
The BIA abused its discretion by failing adequately to consider petitioners’
motion to reopen based on changed country conditions. See Franco-Rosendo v.
Gonzales, 454 F.3d 965, 966 (9th Cir. 2006) (“BIA abuses its discretion when it
fails to consider and address in its entirety the evidence submitted by a petitioner”
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Petitioners submitted country
conditions documents describing escalating violence against Coptic Christians in
Egypt. In its decision, the BIA did not sufficiently address this evidence in light of
the outstanding arrest warrant against Hannalla in Egypt. See Malty v. Ashcroft,
381 F.3d 942, 946 (9th Cir. 2004). We note, given the passage of time, that
petitioners are not precluded from updating the contents of their motion to reopen
to reflect current conditions in Egypt. See id. at 946 (“changed country conditions
are specifically excepted from the numerical limitations on motions”). We
therefore remand for the BIA to reconsider petitioners’ changed country conditions
claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
2 09-70306