Colin v. Mukasey
Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
The BIA abused its discretion by failing to adequately address new and material evidence regarding petitioners’ son’s special educational needs. See Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that reopening is appropriate “where the new facts alleged, when coupled with the facts already of record, satisfy us that it would be worthwhile to develop the issues further at a plenary hearing on reopening”) (quoting Matter of S-V-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1306, 1308 (BIA 2000) (en banc)). We therefore grant the petition for review and remand for reconsideration of petitioners’ motion to reopen.
The temporary stay of removal and voluntary departure confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) and Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2004), shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.
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.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Florentino Zuniga COLIN Iridia Virginia Colin Paredes v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General
- Status
- Published