Navdeep Singh v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NAVDEEP SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-70349
Agency No. A099-482-951
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 21, 2015**
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Navdeep Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
SEP 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

abuse of discretion the 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 remand.
The BIA abused its discretion in finding that Singh’s father’s affidavit
conflicted with the country report and in otherwise discrediting the affidavit, and
thus in concluding Singh failed to establish that the government is unable or
unwilling to protect him and failed to establish that he could not safely relocate
within India. See id. at 987 (“facts presented in affidavits supporting a motion to
reopen must be accepted as true unless inherently unbelievable”). The BIA also
abused its discretion in finding Singh did not make a prima facie showing of a
nexus to a protected ground. See Maini v. INS, 212 F.3d 1167, 1175-76 (9th Cir.
2000) (“persecution aimed at stamping out an interfaith marriage is without
question persecution on account of religion”). Further, in finding Singh did not
establish a material change in India, the BIA did not have the benefit of this court’s
decision in Chandra v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2014). Thus, we grant the
petition for review and remand for further proceedings consistent with this
disposition, including a determination of the impact, if any, of Chandra. See INS
v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
13-70349 2

-- 2 of 2 --