Case ID: f-appx_653/html/0858-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hector Neptaly MILLA-PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-71020
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2016 
    
    June 2, 2016
    Zulu Ali, Law Office of Zulu Ali, Riverside, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Jennifer A. Singer, DOJ -U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hector Neptaly Milla-Perez, a native and citizen of Honduras, 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 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 we remand.

The BIA abused its discretion in denying Milla-Perez’s motion to reopen because it discredited the testimony in his supporting declaration. Nee id. at 986-87 (“We have long held that credibility determinations on motions to reopen are inappropriate. Indeed, facts presented in affidavits supporting a motion to reopen must be accepted as true unless inherently unbelievable.”) (citation omitted). Thus, the BIA abused its discretion in denying Mil-la-Perez’s motion to reopen. See id. at 989. 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, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

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.