Galina Orlova v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GALINA ORLOVA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-74696
Agency No. A096-351-262
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Galina Orlova, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction
FILED
APR 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

05-74696 2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations.
Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We grant the petition for
review and remand.
The IJ found Orlova not credible based on, inter alia, two government
reports that challenged the authenticity of Orlova’s birth certificate. The
government did not disclose the reports in advance of the hearing, or make the
reports’ authors available for cross-examination. Under these circumstances, the
IJ’s consideration of the reports denied Orlova a fair hearing. See Cinapian v.
Holder, 567 F.3d 1067, 1075-77 (9th Cir. 2009) (government’s failure to disclose
forensic reports in advance of hearing or to make reports’ authors available for
cross-examination, and IJ’s subsequent consideration of the reports denied
petitioners a fair hearing). In light of our disposition, we do not address the IJ’s
remaining reasons for finding Orlova not credible.
Accordingly, we remand Orlvoa’s claims for further proceedings consistent
with this disposition. See id.; see INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per
curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --