Case Name: Hector Neptaly MILLA-PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-02
Citations: 653 F. App'x 858
Docket Number: No. 14-71020
Parties: Hector Neptaly MILLA-PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 653
Pages: 858–858

Head Matter:
Hector Neptaly MILLA-PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-71020
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2016
June 2, 2016
Zulu Ali, Law Office of Zulu Ali, Riverside, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, Jennifer A. Singer, DOJ -U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, 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
Hector Neptaly Milla-Perez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion.to reopen. Bhasin v, Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 983 (9th Cir.2005). We grant the petition for review and we remand.
The BIA abused its discretion in denying Milla-Perez's motion to reopen because it discredited the testimony in his supporting declaration. Nee id. at 986-87 ("We have long held that credibility determinations on motions to reopen are inappropriate. Indeed, facts presented in affidavits supporting a motion to reopen must be accepted as true unless inherently unbelievable.") (citation omitted). Thus, the BIA abused its discretion in denying Mil-la-Perez's motion to reopen. See id. at 989. 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.