Kulwinder Singh 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
KULWINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72412
Agency No. A079-572-208
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Kulwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
FILED
FEB 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-72412 2
BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 983 (9th
Cir. 2005). We grant the petition for review, and we remand.
In Singh’s prior proceedings, the BIA found that Singh was credible and
suffered past persecution, but that the government rebutted the presumption of
future persecution. Singh subsequently filed a motion to reopen alleging the police
continued to inquire about him and had harmed his father and brother as a result.
The BIA found Singh’s evidence, including the death certificate he submitted for
his father, was insufficiently reliable, and also found he did not adequately show
the evidence regarding his father’s death was previously unavailable.
The BIA erred in finding Singh did not adequately show the evidence
regarding his father’s death was previously unavailable, because the death did not
occur until after Singh’s last immigration hearing. See Bhasin, 423 F.3d at 987
(information in petitioner’s declaration that became available during pendency of
BIA appeal was not previously available because it concerned events that occurred
after the hearing before the immigration judge). Further, even if his father’s death
certificate was unreliable, the BIA abused its discretion in rejecting Singh’s other
evidence, including his declaration, his family’s affidavits, and his brother’s
medical records, because it did not explain why it doubted the authenticity of this
evidence or why it otherwise found the evidence unreliable. See Mohammed v.

-- 2 of 3 --

10-72412 3
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 792 (9th Cir. 2005) (“the BIA must issue a decision that
fully explains the reasons for denying a motion to reopen”). In rejecting the
evidence in this way, the BIA failed to address entirely the police interest in Singh
and the mistreatment of his brother, see Mejia v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 873, 878-79
(9th Cir. 2002) (BIA abused its discretion in failing to address petitioner’s imputed
political opinion claim), and did not address the other evidence of his father’s
death. Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and remand for further
proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-
18 (2002) (per curiam); Mejia, 298 F.3d at 880.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --