Case ID: f-appx_142/html/0291-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Elenita A. ADRIANO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 04-70141.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 9, 2005.
    
    Decided July 25, 2005.
    
      David Robert Blake, Esq., Solana Beach, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit. Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Elenita A. Adriano, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of her motion to reopen proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel and equitable tolling. We apply the transitional rules under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, and we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Fajardo v. INS, 300 F.3d 1018, 1019 (9th Cir. 2002), but review purely legal questions de novo, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We grant the petition for review.

The BIA abused its discretion when it denied petitioner’s motion to reopen because petitioner acted with due diligence in discovering that her case had been dismissed, in discovering misconduct by her prior attorney, in seeking out and retaining a new attorney, and in filing a motion to reopen. See Fajardo, 300 F.3d at 1019, 1022; see also Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897, 899 (9th Cir.2003). We therefore remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 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 may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.