Olusoji Odumakinde 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
OLUSOJI ODUMAKINDE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70179
Agency No. A077-183-904
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 6, 2012**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Olusoji Odumakinde, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v.
FILED
MAR 13 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-70179 2
INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we grant the petition for review and
remand.
In his motion to reopen, Odumakinde provided evidence that there has been
an escalation of violence since the time of the merits hearing against his family
members and fellow churchgoers in Nigeria because of their Christian religion,
including that Muslim extremists doused Odumakinde’s brother with gasoline in
an attempt to light him on fire, and cut his head with a machete. We conclude the
BIA abused its discretion in denying Odumakinde’s motion to reopen where he
provided sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in Nigeria such that he now
has a “reasonable likelihood” of demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution.
See Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945-48 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we
grant the petition and remand to the BIA with instructions to reopen. See id. at
948.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --