Iresha De Silva v. Eric Holder, Jr.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 20 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

IRESHA DE SILVA, No. 10-72932

Petitioner, Agency No. A079-763-110

v.

MEMORANDUM*

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted April 9, 2014 Pasadena, California

Before: THOMAS, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Iresha De Silva, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, petitions for review of a

decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen

proceedings on the basis of changed country conditions in Sri Lanka. We grant the

petition.

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

1 To prevail on a motion to reopen on the basis of changed country conditions,

a petitioner needs “to clear four hurdles”: “(1) he ha[s] to produce evidence that

conditions ha[ve] changed in [his country of nationality]; (2) the evidence ha[s] to

be…

MEMORANDUM *

Iresha De Silva, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen proceedings on the basis of changed country conditions in Sri Lanka. We grant the petition.

To prevail on a motion to reopen on the basis of changed country conditions, a petitioner needs “to clear four hurdles”: “(1) he ha[s] to produce evidence that conditions ha[ve] changed in [his country of nationality]; (2) the evidence ha[s] to be ‘material;’ (3) the evidence must not have been available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding; and (4) he ha[s] to demonstrate that the new evidence, when considered together with the evidence presented at the original hearing, would establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought.” Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The BIA denied De Silva’s motion to reopen, reasoning that De Silva had not “submitted statements from people in Sri Lanka who know the circumstances of his brother’s death” nor had he presented “any other evidence ... explaining how the respondent…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent from the majority decision granting the petition for review. I believe the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen because the evidence that De Silva submitted with the motion was insufficient to establish changed country conditions in Sri Lanka. See Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir.2008).

To show changed country conditions, De Silva pointed to the death of his brother, and submitted a death certificate and his own cursory declaration. But affidavits and declarations may be insufficient to show changed country conditions if they do not contain sufficient detail or context. See Feng Gui Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 986 (9th Cir.2009) (holding that statement from petitioner’s mother was cursory and did not contain sufficient detail, when rejecting petitioner’s argument that country conditions had changed); He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1132-33 (9th Cir.2007) (holding that petitioners provided insufficient supporting documentation to establish changed conditions because sworn statement from one of the petitioners provided neither dates nor context).

Here, the declaration provides only the following about…