Case ID: f-appx_471/html/0653-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kulwinder KAUR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-71527.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 28, 2012.
    
    Filed March 8, 2012.
    Babak Pourtavoosi, Pannun the Firm, P.C., Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Robbin Kinmonth Blaya, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    
      Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.