Case ID: f-appx_155/html/0284-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Roberto HUERTA-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-71107.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 8, 2005.
    
    Decided Nov. 21, 2005.
    Roberto Huerta-Lopez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    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, Virginia Lum, Anthony W. Norwood, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offlce of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before WALLACE, LEAVY and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Roberto Huerta-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 963 (9th Cir.2002), and we grant the petition for review.

The BIA abused its discretion when it treated Huerta-Lopez’s 2003 motion as a motion to reconsider. Because Huerta-Lopez introduced evidence of alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, the BIA “misapplied its regulations to classify [Huerta-Lopez’s] motion as a motion to reconsider” rather than as a motion to reopen. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894-97 (9th Cir.2003). As the BIA has not addressed Huerta-Lopez’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we remand for the agency to consider this issue in the first instance. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.