Boika v. Holder

Bd. abused its discretion in denying alien’s motion to reopen her asylum application proceedings based on new evidence indicating that alien’s native country (Belarus) had conducted recent crackdown on political opponents that was subsequent to Bd.’s initial denial of her asylum petition that had alleged past persecution based on her political beliefs. Bd.’s one sentence rejection of proffered new evidence did not provide adequate explanation for denial of motion to reopen, and although alien’s lack of credibility regarding her pre-2007 political opposition to Belarus govt. led to rejection of her initial asylum request, Bd. could not solely use said lack of credibility to discredit alien’s new evidence concerning either her anti-Belarus govt. political activity in U.S. subsequent to denial of her asylum application or new violent crackdown by current Belarus govt. on its political opponents.