Case ID: f-appx_236/html/0318-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Suresh M. VYAS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-77189.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 5, 2007.
    
    Filed June 7, 2007.
    Robert B. Jobe, Esq., Law Offices of Robert B. Jobe, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, lia C. Deiss, Esq., USSF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Suresh M. Vyas, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen to reapply for asylum based on changed country conditions. We' have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion. See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005), and we grant the petition for review.

The BIA abused its discretion in denying Vyas’ motion to reopen where he provided sufficient evidence that circumstances have changed in India such that he now has a “reasonable likelihood” of demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution. See Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 947-48 (9th Cir.2004) (concluding that circumstances had changed where petitioner submitted new evidence of violence against Egytian Coptic Christians generally and specific acts of violence against his family in particular).

Accordingly, we grant the petition and remand to the BIA with instructions to reopen. See id. at 948.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cír. R. 36-3.