Case Name: CHENG FEI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-01
Citations: 233 F. App'x 765
Docket Number: No. 05-75963
Parties: CHENG FEI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 233
Pages: 765–765

Head Matter:
CHENG FEI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-75963.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 16, 2007.
Filed June 1, 2007.
Kevin G. Long, Esq., Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Fred Wallace Slaughter, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Cheng Fei, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see Konstantinova v. INS, 195 F.3d 528, 529 (9th Cir.1999), we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.
The BIA abused its discretion by not addressing Fei's claim of changed circumstances based on a Chinese official's threat to sterilize him if he returns to China. See, e.g., id. ("The BIA abuses its discretion when it . disregards important aspects of the alien's claim."). We grant the petition and remand for further proceedings.
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.