FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OCT 28 2015
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KHIN HLAING SOE, AKA Nay Lin No. 10-73945
Sean,
Agency No. A095-280-955
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: SILVERMAN and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges and DUFFY,*** District
Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Kevin Thomas Duffy, District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
-2-
Khin Hlaing Soe petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
dismissal of his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his motion to
reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We grant Soe’s
petition and remand to the BIA.
At the time the BIA dismissed Soe’s appeal, we had not yet decided
Chandra v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2014). In Chandra, we held that “a
petitioner’s untimely motion to reopen may qualify under the changed conditions
exception in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), even if the changed country conditions are
made relevant by a change in the petitioner’s personal circumstances.”1 Id. at
1038. When the BIA made its decision in Soe’s case, it did not consider how Soe’s
publicly documented involvement in pro-democracy, Burmese groups in San
Francisco beginning in 2005 made relevant his substantial evidence of changed
country conditions in Burma; namely, the government’s treatment of returning
citizens who protested against it while abroad and its inquiry into his whereabouts
and activities shortly after he participated in protests against it in San Francisco. In
accordance with Chandra, the BIA should consider Soe’s changed personal
circumstances in light of the evidence of changed country conditions. Therefore,
1
The language in § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) is identical to the language pertaining to
changed country conditions in the regulation applicable to Soe – 8 C.F.R. §
1003.23(b)(4)(i) – who moved to reopen before the IJ rather than the BIA.
-3-
we grant Soe’s petition and remand to the BIA for reconsideration. See INS v.
Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
PETITION GRANTED; REMANDED.