Case Name: Leakhana UONG, aka Leakhana Mamuth, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-05-02
Citations: 649 F. App'x 507
Docket Number: No. 15-70301
Parties: Leakhana UONG, aka Leakhana Mamuth, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 649
Pages: 507–508

Head Matter:
Leakhana UONG, aka Leakhana Mamuth, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 15-70301.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 26, 2016.
Filed May 2, 2016.
Angela Novas McGill, Esquire, Law Office of Angela -Novas McGill, APC, Long Beach, CA, for Petitioner.
Mona Maria Yousif, Trial, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, 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
Leakhana Uong, a native, and citizen of Cambodia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1262. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 786, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We grant the petition for review.
The BIA abused its discretion in denying Uong's motion to reopen on the ground that her evidence "merely list[ed] the same address" as her spouse, where she provided substantially more evidence of the bona fides of her marriage than the BIA's decision indicated. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(e)(3). We remand for the agency to redetermine whether Uong has presented clear and convincing evidence of a bona fide marriage.
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.