N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ALAA GHASSOUB OB EID,

Pe t i tione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 13-70693 Age n c y No. A095-282-938 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 a nd Subm itte d July

5, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B ER

Z ON, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C i rc uit Judge s, a nd ZOUHAR

Y, * * Distric t Judge . In 2004, a fte r be ing c ha rge d with re m ova

bility , pe titione r Ala a

Obe id a pplie d for a djustm e nt of sta tus to tha t of a pe rson a dm itte d for la

wful pe rm ane nt re side nc e on the ba s is of his m a rria ge to a

U.S. c i tiz e n . Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1255(a).



# FIL ED JUL 21 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Ja c k Zouha

ry , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Ohio, sitting by de signa t ion.Obe id ha d be e n indic te d for c onspira c y to c om m i t m one y

la unde ring, but the indic tm e nt wa s dism isse d a s pa rt of a ple a a g re e m e nt. An im

m igrat ion judge(“ IJ” ) rule d, on theba sis of theindic tm e nt, tha t Obe id wa s ina dm i ssible— and thus ine l igibleto a djust his sta tus — unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1182(a)(2)(I). The B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s (“ B IA” ) a ffirm e d, c onc luding tha t Obe id wa s a

n “ a ide r or a ssiste r” of m one y

la unde ring unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1182(a)(2)(I)(ii). Afte r this c ourt gran te d a pe t ition for re vie w, Obe id v . Holde r , 484 F. App'x 189, 191 (9th C ir. 2012), theB IA a ga in a ffirm e d, holding tha t the re wa s “ re a son to be lie v e ” tha t Obe id ha d e n ga ge d in m one y la unde ring unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1182(a)(2)(I)(i). Obe id c ha lle nge s tha

t de te rm ination. W e grant the pe t ition. 1. The B IA e rre d in re ly ing on thepurporte d te stim ony of De te c tive O’ B rie n tha

t the indic tm e nt wa s not dism isse d for la c k of proba

ble c a use . The B IA m issta

te s the re c ord; in fa c t, De te c tive O’ B rie n did not te stify at a ll a b out the gove rnm e nt’ s re a sons for dismissing the indic t m e nt. 2. The B IA furthe r e rre d in de te rm ining tha t the indic t

m e nt, sta nding a lone , c onstitute d “ re a s on to be lie ve ” tha t Obe id e nga g e d in m one y la unde ring. 1 The indic tm e nt c ha

rge d Obe id only

with c onspirac

y to c om m it m one y

la unde ring.

1 The gove rnm e nt c onc e de d at ora l a rgum e nt tha

t the B IA re lie d sole ly

on the d ism isse d indic tm e nt. 2Eve n a ssum ing tha t pa rtic ipation in a

c onspira c y

to c om m it m one y

la unde ring c onstitute s “ re a son to be lie ve ” that the pa rtic ipa nt in fa c t e nga ge d in m one y la unde ring, the e vide nc e in this c a se fa lls short. A dism isse d indic tm e nt, without m ore , doe s not c onstitute

“ re a son to be lie ve ” tha

t the de fe nda

n t c om m itte d the c rim e c ha rge d. 3. W e do not de c ide whe the r Obe i d’ s divorc e during thec ourse of the se proc e e dings a

utom atic a lly

inva lida te s his a pplic ation for a djustm e nt of sta tus unde r 8 C .F.R . § 205.1(a)(3)(i)(D). “ Ge ne ra lly spe aking, a

c o urt of a

ppe a ls should re m and a c a se to a n a g e nc y for de c ision of a

m atte r that sta

tute s pla c e prim arily

in a ge nc y ha nds.” IN S v . Orlando Ventura , 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002); se e also Gonzale s v . Thomas , 547 U.S. 183 (2006). The B IA is in the be st position to de te rm i ne in the first insta nc e the a pplic a b ility of its own re gula

tion. G RANT E D.

3