
    Achmad KARIM and Fnu Erta, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-70951.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted June 7, 2013.
    Filed June 13, 2013.
    Armin Alexander Skalmowski, Law Office of Armin Skalmowski, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioners.
    
      Dalin Riley Holyoak, Esquire, Trial, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GOULD and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and DU, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Miranda Du, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Cir. R. 36-3.
     