
    Biniam Negash GEBEREHIWOT, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-70450.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 15, 2016.
    
    Filed March 23, 2016.
    Jeremiah Johnson, Johnson & McDermed, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Don George Scroggin, Esquire, Trial, Juria L. Jones, 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: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Biniam Negash Geberehiwot, a native of Ethiopia and a citizen of Eritrea, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Oyeniran v. Holder, 672 F.3d 800, 806 (9th Cir.2012). We grant and remand the petition for review.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, the agency abused its discretion in denying Geberehiwot’s motion to reopen. Athough the corroborative evidence Geberehiwot submitted with his motion predated his former hearing, the record indicates that the IJ did not give Geberehiwot notice and an opportunity to' provide such evidence to corroborate his credible testimony. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1090 (9th Cir.2011) (“[A]n IJ must provide an applicant with notice and an opportunity to either produce the evidence or explain why it is unavailable before ruling that the applicant has failed in his obligation to provide corroborative evidence and therefore failed to meet his burden of proof.”).

Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     