CA9 on Kenya, Evidence, Confidentiality, Authentication: Owino II

"... Owino petitioned for review and we granted the petition.  Owino v. Holder, 575 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). ... The BIA dismissed Owino’s appeal on April 23, 2012.  It affirmed the IJ’s denial of Owino’s motion to admit additional evidence, reasoning that Owino had failed to explain the delay in submitting the evidence and that the evidence was not properly authenticated.  It also affirmed the adverse credibility finding and the denial of CAT relief.  Owino again petitioned for review. ... We grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA to (1) reconsider whether a continuance should have been granted after evaluating all of the factors set out in An Na Peng v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1248, 1253 (9th Cir. 2012); (2) determine whether the government’s breach of Owino’s right to confidentiality gives rise to a new claim for CAT relief; and (3) reconsider its findings on Owino’s credibility and his original CAT claim in light of all evidence in the record." - Owino v. Holder, Nov. 4, 2014.  [Hats off to appointed pro bono counsel, Shane H. McKenzie!]