Case Name: Sohan SINGH, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-22
Citations: 667 F. App'x 177
Docket Number: No. 14-71119
Parties: Sohan SINGH, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 177–177

Head Matter:
Sohan SINGH, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-71119
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 2016
June 22, 2016
Sohan Singh, Pro Se, Hayward,' CA, for Petitioner.
John Beadle Holt, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Sohan Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen. We have -jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen, we review for substantial evidence the BIA's factual findings, and we review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We grant the petition for review and remand.
The BIA abused its discretion in denying Singh's motion to reopen as untimely, where he provided sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in India, see Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945-48 (9th Cir. 2004), and where the BIA failed to provide a reasoned explanation as to why Singh did not establish a prima facie case for relief, see Franco-Rosendo v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 965, 966 (9th Cir. 2006). Thus, 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.