David Singui v. Eric Holder, Jr.

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioner David Singui petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his untimely-filed motions to reopen proceedings. We grant the petitions and remand with instructions to reopen Singui’s deportation proceedings.

1. Singui first argues that the BIA used the wrong standard in denying his motions because it required him to show changed country conditions rather than changed circumstances arising in the country. However, the BIA used both terms interchangeably, as we have in our case law. See, e.g., Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 993-94 (9th Cir.2008); Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945-47 (9th Cir. 2004). Therefore, the BIA did not apply the wrong standard to evaluate Singui’s motions.

2. Next, Singui argues that the BIA erred in concluding that he failed to show changed circumstances in Cameroon, which is an exception that permits untimely-filed motions to reopen. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), (3). Singui submitted new evidence that was not available at the time of the proceedings before the Immigration Judge (“IJ”). The evidence included emails from another anti-government ac *641 tivist who said that he was detained in 2008 and…

dissenting:

In my opinion the BIA properly decided that Singui had not submitted sufficient supporting evidence to justify reopening in light of changed country conditions. In fact, he filed no affidavits swearing to the truth of his statements or authenticating or otherwise justifying his claims. That is a particular problem where, as here, he had been found to lack credibility in the original proceeding for a multitude of reasons. As the IJ stated, Singui’s “application for asylum was replete with inconsistencies and discrepancies.” 1 The majority’s denigration of the BIA’s reli- *642 anee on the lack of affidavits overlooks the Supreme Court’s statements regarding the alien’s heavy burden 2 and the importance of affidavits, 3 which have particular bite here in light of the prior adverse credibility determination. 4 In fine, Singui’s presentation was so weak that the BIA could properly determine that it did not rise to the level of a prima facie case; the BIA did not abuse its discretion. Thus, I respectfully dissent.

. One of the grounds (the statement about the arrest of four individuals) was both inconsistent and uncorroborated.

. INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 108-11 , 108…

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 24 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID SINGUI, No. 10-71872

Petitioner, Agency No. A072-538-658

v.

MEMORANDUM*

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

Respondent.

DAVID SINGUI, AKA Mpoupe Singui, No. 11-70160

Petitioner, Agency No. A072-538-658

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Argued and Submitted March 2, 2015 Pasadena, California

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Before: PREGERSON, FERNANDEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner David Singui petitions for review of the Board of Immigration

Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his untimely-filed motions to reopen proceedings. We

grant the petitions and remand with instructions to reopen Singui’s deportation

proceedings.

1. Singui first argues that the BIA used the wrong standard in denying…