Brar

MEMORANDUM *

Gurpreet Singh Brar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings in light of changed country conditions. The BIA denied the motion, because (1) the motion was untimely; (2) Brar failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief; and alternatively, (3) Brar failed to report for deportation, therefore barring him relief under the Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 , and we grant the petition.

The time limitation for a motion to reopen does not apply to proceedings based on evidence of changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality, if the material evidence was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(3)(ii); Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004).

Here, Brar submitted affidavits and evi-dentiary materials to support his motion to reopen. The BIA, however, did not consider Brar’s newly submitted documents, because he did not submit an affidavit himself. We find no authority for this proposition.…