Case Name: Lianjun TENG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-14
Citations: 375 F. App'x 770
Docket Number: No. 07-72916
Parties: Lianjun TENG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 375
Pages: 770–771

Head Matter:
Lianjun TENG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-72916.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Decided April 14, 2010.
Albert S. Chow, Lin & Chow, Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, 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
Lianjun Teng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law, including claims of due process violations due to ineffective assis tance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.
The BIA abused its discretion in denying Teng's motion for failure to comply with the requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 687 (BIA 1988), because Teng demonstrated substantial compliance where he submitted a detailed declaration explaining his reasons for not filing a disciplinary complaint against his attorney. See Lo v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 934, 937-38 (9th Cir.2003) (sufficient compliance with Lozada where petitioner, inter alia, explained absence of bar complaint).
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.