Agonafer v. Sessions, No. 13-73122 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePetitioner sought review of the BIA's denial of his motion to reopen proceedings to apply for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner feared that he would be tortured on account of his sexual orientation if he is removed to his home country of Ethiopia. The Ninth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction over the petition pursuant to the exception to the jurisdictional bar of 8 U.S.C. 252(a)(2)(C) for reviewing mixed questions of law and fact, because the petition here required the panel to apply the law to undisputed facts. The panel also held that the BIA abused its discretion by disregarding or discrediting the undisputed new evidence submitted by petitioner regarding increased violence toward homosexuals in Ethiopia, including reports of violence by both the government and private citizens. Accordingly, the panel granted the petition for review.
Court Description: Immigration The panel granted a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings for reconsideration of Daniel Agonafer’s eligibility for relief under the Convention Against Torture in light of changed country conditions in Ethiopia. The panel concluded that despite Agonafer’s criminal conviction it had jurisdiction to review the petition for review under the exception to the jurisdictional bar of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) for reviewing mixed questions of law and fact. The panel also concluded that it had jurisdiction because the Board’s denial of the motion to reopen did not rely on Agonafer’s conviction, but rather was a denial of his motion on the merits. The panel held that the Board abused its discretion by disregarding or discrediting the undisputed new evidence submitted by Agonafer regarding increased violence toward homosexuals in Ethiopia, including reports of violence by both the government and private citizens. The panel remanded for the Board to properly consider the changed country conditions evidence Agonafer submitted with his motion to reopen.
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.