CA9 on Velarde, Public Charge: Tadevosyan v. Holder

CA9 on Velarde, Public Charge: Tadevosyan v. Holder

"We therefore conclude that the BIA abused its discretion by improperly relying on a de facto DHS veto as dispositive of Tadevosyan’s motion to reopen. ... Abrahamian’s affidavit was sufficient to make the prima facie showing required when the BIA considers a motion to reopen.  Had the BIA addressed the issue on the merits - which, as we have explained, it did not - it would have been an abuse of discretion to deny the motion. ... The BIA therefore would have abused its discretion for a third reason - lack of reasoned decisionmaking.  More tellingly, the failure to provide any reasoned explanation confirms that the agency denied the motion because DHS objected, not because it considered DHS’s objection on the merits and agreed with its reasoning." - Tadevosyan v. Holder, Feb. 26, 2014.  [Hats off to Cheri Attix!]