From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Anagaw v. Gonzales

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 6, 2007
236 F. App'x 304 (9th Cir. 2007)

Opinion

No. 05-72603.

Submitted May 16, 2007.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed June 6, 2007.

Olumide K. Obayemi, Esq., Law Offices of Olumide K. Obayemi, Hayward, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Russell B. Kinner, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Commercial Litigation Frauds, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A77-977-258.

Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

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

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 re-open 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.


Summaries of

Anagaw v. Gonzales

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 6, 2007
236 F. App'x 304 (9th Cir. 2007)
Case details for

Anagaw v. Gonzales

Case Details

Full title:Sirak Deneke ANAGAW, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 6, 2007

Citations

236 F. App'x 304 (9th Cir. 2007)