Case Name: Oscar Daniel BOLANES-BLANCO, a.k.a. Oscar Bolanos, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-22
Citations: 428 F. App'x 749
Docket Number: No. 08-71836
Parties: Oscar Daniel BOLANES-BLANCO, a.k.a. Oscar Bolanos, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 428
Pages: 749–750

Head Matter:
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).

Opinion:
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.