Nasreen Sultana v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s denial of Ms. Sultana’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA” or “Board”) denial of her motion to reopen. In my judgment, the BIA’s opinion evinces inadequate consideration of Ms. Sultana’s evidence of changed country conditions and fails to follow one of its own prior decisions. Therefore, I would remand this case to the BIA to reconsider Ms. Sultana’s motion to reopen.

Although we presume that the BIA considered the evidence before it, such a presumption can be overcome. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir.2000). Specifically, “[t]he BIA abuses its discretion when it fails to consider and address in its entirety the evidence submitted by a petitioner and to issue a decision that fully explains the reasons for denying a motion to reopen.” Franco-Rosendo v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 965, 966 (9th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Ms. Sultana submitted country conditions evidence describing escalating mistreatment of those affiliated with the Jatiyo Party since the resurgence of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“BNP”) in *713 October 2001. 1 In its decision, the BIA did…

MEMORANDUM ***

Nasreen Sultana, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of her motion to reopen. We deny the petition.

Over five years after her asylum petition was denied by the BIA and she was granted a voluntary departure period of thirty days, Sultana made a motion to reopen and claimed changed country conditions in Bangladesh. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (c)(7)(C)(i)-(ii). Sultana asserts that the BIA erred when it declared that the evidence did not show “such a change in conditions in Bangladesh as to warrant reopening of proceedings in this matter.” We disagree.

We have reviewed the record and are satisfied that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010). Moreover, the BIA sufficiently exhibited its consideration of the evidence that Sultana placed before it. See Id., 597 F.3d at 990-91 ; Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir.2000). We are unable to conclude that a contrary decision was compelled by the evidence. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 , 481 & n. 1, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812 , 815 & n. 1, 817, 117 L.Ed.2d 38…

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 01 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

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

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NASREEN SULTANA, ) No. 08-74771 ) Petitioner, ) Agency No. A070-886-295 ) v. ) MEMORANDUM* ) ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney ) General, ) ) Respondent. ) )

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

Submitted June 10, 2013** San Francisco, California

Before: RIPPLE,*** FERNANDEZ, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Nasreen Sultana, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of her motion to reopen. We deny the

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Kenneth F. Ripple, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.…