Case ID: f-appx_508/html/0655-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Armen AMIRKHANYAN, a.k.a. Armen Amirkhanian; Gayane Maghakyan, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-71835.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 11, 2013.
    
    Filed Feb. 14, 2013.
    Gary Joel Silbiger, Culver City, CA, for Petitioners.
    Oil, Manuel Palau, DOJ-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: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Armen Amirkhanyan and Gayane Ma-ghakyan, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo claims of due process violations. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

The BIA abused its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen based on the ineffective assistance of the attorney who represented them before the agency, where petitioners established that their attorney failed to sufficiently prepare their case, they advised their attorney of available corroborating evidence but the attorney failed to introduce such evidence, and these failures may have affected the agency’s adverse credibility finding. See Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 793-94 (prejudice results when counsel’s actions may have affected the outcome of proceedings). Moreover, the BIA’s failure to mention the highly probative affidavits of the two witnesses who would have testified in support of petitioners’ claim was an abuse of discretion. See Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771-72 (9th Cir.2011).

We therefore grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.

Because the government concedes that the BIA did not deny petitioners’ motion as untimely, the issue of equitable tolling is not before us.

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.