Kulwinder Kaur 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 KAUR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71527
Agency No. A077-378-903
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 28, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Kulwinder Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion,
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005), and we grant the
FILED
MAR 08 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-71527 2
petition for review and remand.
The BIA erred by denying Kaur’s motion to reopen based on its finding that
Kaur did not submit evidence that Indian police seek to arrest members of Sikh
organizations because of such membership, because the record shows Kaur
submitted a letter from the president of the All-India Sikh Student Federation
(“AISSF”) that stated police were targeting Sikhs based on their membership in the
AISSF and other Sikh parties. See id. at 793 (“[T]he BIA is obligated to consider
and address in its entirety the evidence submitted by a petitioner.”). Accordingly,
we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings consistent with
this disposition. See Mejia v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --