N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT C LYDE J. PINTO, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 07-74607 Age n c y No. A070-582-939 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d M arc h 16, 2010 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , PREGER SON, a nd R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s. C ly de J. Pinto, a

native and c itiz e n of India , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) orde r de ny ing his mo tion to re ope n re m ova l proc e e dings on the

ba sis tha t his prior c ounse l wa s ine ffe c tive . W e pre viously file d a m e m orandum

disposition holding tha

t the B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion 

# FIL ED NOV 14 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).in de ny ing them otion to re ope n a nd tha t Pinto’ s due proc e ss c la im s la c ke d m e rit. Pinto pe titione d

for re he aring a

nd c o nte nde d tha

t the B IA e rre d by

fa iling to a c c ount for thepositivee quitie s tha t would support a

favora b l e e xe rc ise of disc re tion with re spe c t

to the m otion to re ope n. W e withdre w the origina l disposition, re fe rre d the c a se to the C irc uit M e d iation Offic e , a

nd dismi sse d the pe tition a s m oot. M e diation wa s unsuc c e s sful, a

nd we orde re d the gove rnm e nt to re spond to the c onte ntions ra ise d in Pinto’ s pe tition for re he aring. The gove rnm e nt re sponde d tha t the B IA’ s de c ision de m onstra

te s it took into a

c c o unt thefavora

b le e q uitie s . W e now re insta

te our prior holding tha

t the B IA a c te d within the sc ope of its a uthority in de ny ing Pinto’ s m otion on discre tiona ry grounds, a

nd tha t Pinto’ s due proc e s s c la im s a

re not pe rsua sive . The B IA suffic ie ntly c onside re d

the positive e quitie s. Se e Virk

v . IN S , 295 F.3d 1055, 1060 (9th C ir. 2002). TheB IA a c knowle dge d tha

t Pinto wa s m arrie d to a

U.S. c i tiz e n a

nd tha t he c l a im e d ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l, but found tha t e v ide nc e outwe ighe d by Pinto’ s pre s e ntation of a

fa lse birth c e rtific ate and inc re dible te s tim o ny . In his pe tition for re vie w, Pinto ha s ra ise d for the first tim e othe r positive e quitie s tha

t now e xist dueto the pa ssa ge of tim e , a n d tha t c ould support a favora ble e xe rc ise of disc re tion by the gove rnm e nt unde r e xisting e x e c utive 2polic ie s. The se inc lude his support for his thre e U.S. c itiz e n c hildre n, his longtim e e m p loy m e nt, his wife ’ s pote ntia l m e nta l illne ss, his la c k of c rim ina l history , a s we ll a s the prior ine ffe c tive ne ss of c o unse l. The pe tition for re vie w of the B IA’ s 2007 de c ision, howe ve r, m ust be de nie d . PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

3Pinto v . Holde r , No. 07-74607

PR E GER SON, C irc uit Judge , disse nting: C ly de Pinto is a

fifty -y e ar-old fat

he r of thre e U.S. born c i tiz e n c hildre n, a ge s twe nty -two, twe nty -one , a nd se ve n y e ars old. His wife is a U.S. c itiz e n . He ha s a

n a pprove d I-130 visa

pe t ition ba se d

on his m arria ge to his pre se nt wife . Pinto ha s live d in theU.S. for ove r twe nty -thre e y e ars, a nd worke d a s a

n a c c ounta

nt for va rious sc hool distric t s in C a lifornia . He ha s no c rim ina l re c ord a nd doe s not pose a nat iona l se c urity

risk. Pinto’ s wife suffe rs from de pre ssion a

nd a nxie ty , re quiring ongoing psy

c hologic a l tre atm e nt. Additiona l ly , ove r the c ourse of Pinto’ s im

m igration proc e e d ings, here c e ive d poor re p re se ntation from m ultiple attorne y s. Although the B IA note d

in its de c ision de ny ing them otion to re ope n tha t Pinto wa s m arrie d, the B IA e rre d by fa iling to fully c onside r a ll re le v ant fa c tors, spe c ific a lly

the m a ny positivee quitie s sta

te d a bove . Se e Ali v . Holde r , 637 F.3d 1025, 1031-32 (9th C ir. 2011) (sta ting tha t the B IA’ s re vie w of a

m otion to re ope n

“ m ust show proper c onside ration of a ll fa c tors, both fa vora ble and unfa

vora ble ” ). In doing so, the

B IA a buse d its disc re tion whe n it de nie d the m otion to re ope n. B e c a use of the B IA’ s a

buse of disc re tion, I be l ie ve that Pinto should be grante d the c ha nc e to re ope n his c a se . Ac c ordingly , I re s pe c tfully disse nt. 

# FIL ED

NOV 14 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS