FENG CHEN V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 12-70164 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED OCT 20 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FENG CHEN, No. 12-70164 Petitioner, Agency No. A078-745-736 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted October 9, 2014 Portland, Oregon Before: FISHER, CHRISTEN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Feng Chen petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his untimely motion to reopen his 2002 removal proceeding. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. BIA s decision on a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233, 242 (2010). Chen claims that the BIA erred in failing to evaluate his evidence of China s changed country conditions in light of his changed personal circumstances. In support of his claim, Chen presented his sworn affidavit, which arguably could show that he faced increased threats of persecution due to his political activities beginning in 2010. When the BIA denied Chen s motion, it did not have the benefit of our decision in Chandra v. Holder, which clarified that a motion to reopen may be justified when changed country conditions are made relevant by a change in petitioner s personal circumstances. 751 F.3d 1034, 1038-39 (9th Cir. 2014). Therefore, we remand to give the agency the chance to determine the impact of this intervening decision on its evaluation of Chen s claim that changed country conditions justify reopening his removal proceeding, and for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 1618 (2002) (per curiam) (recommending remand to the BIA to address matters entrusted by law to the agency that were not considered in the first instance). PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.