Opinion ID: 788316
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial Without Opinion

Text: 27 Petitioner contends that the BIA abused its discretion by denying his motion to remand without providing a rational explanation. He asks that this Court remand his case to the Board with instructions to provide an explanation for the denial. 28 The BIA's denial of a motion to remand is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Fieran v. INS, 268 F.3d 340, 344 (6th Cir.2001) (citing Ashki v. INS, 233 F.3d 913, 917 (6th Cir.2000)). In determining whether the Board abused its discretion, this Court must decide whether the denial of Petitioner's motion to reopen deportation proceedings was made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis such as invidious discrimination.... Balani v. INS, 669 F.2d 1157, 1161 (6th Cir.1982); see Daneshvar v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 615, 626 (6th Cir.2004); see also Zhao v. DOJ, 265 F.3d 83, 97 (2d Cir.2001) (reversing and remanding decision denying motion to reopen where BIA failed to explain decision adequately). 29 Since the Board failed to provide any explanation whatsoever to accompany its decision on Petitioner's motion to remand, it unquestionably failed to supply a rational explanation. The Court therefore REMANDS this case to the BIA for provision of a rational explanation for its decision on the motion to remand.