Case ID: f-appx_253/html/0666-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Victor Nikolayevich AVANESOV, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73085.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 5, 2007.
    
    Filed Nov. 5, 2007.
    Sharon M. Dulberg, Esq., McVey Mullery & Dulberg, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Esq., Cindy S. Ferrier, Esq., R. Lynne Harris, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: HUG, THOMAS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Peter D. Keisler is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Acting Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

The oral argument scheduled in this case for November 7, 2007 is vacated.

Pursuant to the motion by the Attorney General, we vacate the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) in this case and remand the petition for review to the BIA so that it may consider Petitioner Avanesov’s claim that the immigration judge was biased and that said bias resulted in the denial of his procedural due process right to a full and fail1 hearing. This remand is without prejudice and does not preclude either party from presenting any other issue raised in the petition for review in any future proceeding.

VACATED AND REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.