Satnam Randhawa v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 14 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SATNAM SINGH RANDHAWA, No. 12-73217
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-171-361
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 10, 2014**
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Satnam Singh Randhawa, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to
reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Bhasin v.
*
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).
Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 983 (9th Cir. 2005). We grant the petition for review and
we remand.
In denying Randhawa’s motion to reopen, the BIA characterized the
affidavits from Randhawa’s uncle, friend, and nephew as “unauthenticated” and
“unsupported by independent evidence,” and afforded the affidavits minimal
weight. The BIA must accept facts presented in affidavits supporting a motion to
reopen as true “unless inherently unbelievable,” see id. at 987, and the BIA did not
make such a finding. The BIA abused its discretion in its treatment of the
affidavits. See id. at 986 (“We have long held that credibility determinations on
motions to reopen are inappropriate.”). Accordingly, we grant the petition for
review and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See
INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
2 12-73217