Achara Krachingkling v. Eric Holder, Jr.

MEMORANDUM

Lin Yang petitions for review from the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen. We grant the petition for review. Because the parties are familiar with the history and facts of the case, we need not recount it here.

We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Chang Hua He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130 (9th Cir.2007). “Because the BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s decision under Matter of Bwrbano [ 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (B.I.A. 1994) 1 but also provided its own review of the evidence and the law, we review both the IJ and the BIA’s decision.” Joseph v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir.2010).

In this case, the BIA abused its discretion in concluding that Yang’s motion to reopen was time and number barred. There are exceptions to the numerical and timeliness requirements if the applicant can establish “changed country conditions arising in the country ... to which removal has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(3)(ii). Yang submitted evidence and affidavits, accepted as true by the agency,…