ACHMAD KARIM and FNU ERTA v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Cir. R. 36-3.
The Honorable Miranda Du, District Judge for the U.S. District Court**
for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ACHMAD KARIM and FNU ERTA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70951
Agency Nos. A075-763-795
A075-763-796
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted June 7, 2013
Pasadena, California
Before: GOULD and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and DU, District Judge.**
Achmad Karim and Fnu Erta petition for review of the decision by the Board
of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying their motion to reopen as untimely because
FILED
JUN 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Petitioners failed to establish materially changed country conditions in Indonesia.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition.
Petitioners submitted, among other documents, a declaration from Karim in
support of their motion to reopen. The BIA did not acknowledge the declaration,
nor did it address the facts contained therein. While the BIA does not need to
“discuss each piece of evidence submitted,” “where there is any indication that the
BIA did not consider all of the evidence before it, . . . the decision cannot stand.”
Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771-72 (9th Cir. 2011). Here, because the BIA
failed to even acknowledge the declaration, it is not possible to conclusively
determine whether the BIA considered this information. Therefore, we grant the
petition for review and remand for further proceedings for the BIA to specifically
address the evidence raised in the declaration. See Franco–Rosendo v. Gonzales,
454 F.3d 965, 966 (9th Cir. 2006) (“The BIA abuses its discretion when it fails to
consider and address in its entirety the evidence submitted by a petitioner and to
issue a decision that fully explains the reasons for denying a motion to reopen.”
(internal quotation marks omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --