N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ENELE M AAFU TUIFAGALELE, Pe titione r,
v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 13-71030 Age n c y No. A078-185-527
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 18, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : KLEINFELD, W ARD L AW , a

nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Ene le M a ’ a fu Tuifa ga le le pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (B IA’ s) Fe b ruary 22, 2013 de c ision de ny ing his m otion to re ope n a s untim e l y and une xc use d by

c h ange d c ountry

c onditions in Fiji. Se e 8 C .F.R
. § 1003.2(c )(3)(ii). W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a

nd we grant the p e tition. 

# FIL ED
DEC 03 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.“ W e re vie w de nia l s of m otions to re ope n for a buse of disc re tion, a

n d de fe r to the B IA’ s e xe rc ise of disc re tion unle ss it a c te d a rbitra rily , irrationa lly , or
c ontra ry to la w.” N a jmabadi v

. Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th C ir. 2010) (c ita tions omitte d ). The B IA a b use s its disc re tion “ whe n it fa ils to provide a
re a s one d e xpla

n a tion for its a c tions.” Tade v osy an v . Holde r , 743 F.3d 1250, 1252–53 (9th C ir. 2014) (c ita tion omi tte d). The B IA m ust c o nside r a ll “pote ntia lly dispositive

te stim ony

and doc um e nta

ry e v ide nc e ,” and if it fa i ls to do so, its de c ision “ c annot sta

nd.” C olev . Holde r , 659 F.3d 762, 772 (9th C ir. 2011).

“ [O] ur re vie w is limi te d to the a c tua l grounds re l ie d upon by the B IA.” N ajmabadi , 597 F.3d a

t 986. The B IA a

buse d its disc re tion by

fa iling to fully

c o nside r a ll of the e vide nc e subm itte d by

Tuifa ga le le in support of his m otion to re ope n. This e vide nc e inc l ude d Tuifa g a le le ’ s de c la ra tion, thee xpe rt re p ort of Dr. Ste ve n R a tuva (“ R a tuva R e port” ), a

2011 Sta t e De pa rtm e nt C ountry R e port, a

nd le tte rs from

Lorua m a Tawaw ili a

nd Je s oni Vitusagavulu. The B IA c ry ptic a lly re fe re n c e d the ta

b
num be rs at whic h this e vide nc e a ppe are d, but whe re , a s he re , the re is “ any indic a tion tha

t the B IA did not c onside r a l l of the e vide nc e be fore it, a c a tc ha ll phra se doe s not suffic e .” C ole , 659 F.3d a

t 771–72.

2The B IA did not a ddre ss the R a tuva R e port a t a ll. It m isc ha

ra c te riz e d Tuifa g a le le ’ s e vide nc e a s showing “ ge ne ra l unre st,” and fa iling to de m onstra te an individualiz e d

thre a t of pe rse c ution. Howe ve r, the R a tuva R e port de m onstra

te d just tha t. Dr. R a t uva opine d tha

t, if Tuifa ga le le re t

urne d to Fiji, he

fa c e d an individualiz e d

thre a t of pe rse c ution be c a u se of his e x t e nsive m ilita ry ba c kground, inc l uding e xpe rie nc e with e xplosive s; his opposition to the ne w re gim e ; an d his
a pplic a tion for a s y lum in the Unite d State s. This report, fully c onside re d, c onta ins
e vide nc e of c ha

nge d c ountry c onditions tha t m at e ria lly

a ffe c t Tuifa ga le le ’ s
e ligibility for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, or C AT re lie f, and m ay le a d the B IA to gra

n t his m otion to re o p e n. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(3)(ii); Toufighi v

. Muk ase y , 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th C ir. 2008). The B IA’ s de c ision on a

m otion to re ope n is ultima te ly within its disc

re tion. Se e N ajmabadi , 597 F.3d a

t 986. He re , the B IA did not prope rly e xe rc ise tha t disc re tion. W e the re fore gran t the pe tition for re vie w, a nd re m and to the B IA so it
m ay c onside r a ll of Tuifa ga le le ’ s e v ide n c e of c ha n ge d c ountry

c onditions. PE T IT IO N G RANT E D.

3