Case ID: f-appx_425/html/0602-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Djafar SHAMS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72244.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2011.
    
    Filed March 30, 2011.
    Marc Van Der Hout, Van Der Hout, Brigagliano & Nightingale, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Liza Murcia, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Djafar Shams, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen proceedings due to ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Ghahre-mani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 997 (9th Cir.2007), we grant the petition for review.

The BIA abused its discretion by refusing to equitably toll the time and number bars for Shams’s motion to reopen despite his demonstrated due diligence in discovering and attempting to redress the ineffectiveness of his former attorneys. See id. at 999-1000 (petitioner showed due diligence where he “demonstrated a steadfast pursuit of his case” even while being represented by deficient counsel, and quickly filed a motion to reopen after retaining competent counsel).

We therefore grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA for consideration of the merits of Shams’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

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.