Case ID: f-appx_428/html/0749-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Oscar Daniel BOLANES-BLANCO, a.k.a. Oscar Bolanos, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71836.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 20, 2011.
    
    Filed April 22, 2011.
    Oscar Daniel Bolanes-Blanco, Stockton, CA, pro se.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Robbin Kin-month Blaya, Esquire, Trial, Edward Earl Wiggers, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Oscar Daniel Bolanes-Blanco, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand.

The BIA denied Bolanes-Blanco’s motion to reopen without the benefit of our decision in Coyt v. Holder, 593 F.3d 902 (9th Cir.2010), in which we concluded that 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(d) did not apply to cause the withdrawal of a motion to reopen filed by a petitioner who subsequently has been removed from the United States. See Coyt, 593 F.3d at 906-07. We remand in light of this intervening case law for the BIA to reconsider Bolanes-Blanco’s motion, including, if necessary, whether the 90-day filing limitation should be equitably tolled.

We construe Bolanes-Blanco’s letter of January 26, 2009, as a motion to supplement the record. So construed, the motion is denied as moot.

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.