Case Name: Baljinder KAUR, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-15
Citations: 103 F. App'x 274
Docket Number: No. 02-71874
Parties: Baljinder KAUR, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 103
Pages: 274–275

Head Matter:
Baljinder KAUR, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-71874.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2004.
Decided July 15, 2004.
Bart Klein, Esq., Law Offices of Bart Klein, Seattle, WA, for Petitioners.
Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Seattle, WA, Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., Donald A. Couvillon, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: HAWKINS, THOMAS, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Baljinder Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order affirming an immigration judge's decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of deportation. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1005a(a). Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 1997). We review the BIA's summary dismissal for failure to file a brief to determine whether it was appropriate. Vargas-Garcia v. INS, 287 F.3d 882, 884 (9th Cir.2002). We grant the petition for review.
Contrary to the government's contention, we have jurisdiction to consider this appeal. The time for filing a petition for review begins to run when the BIA complies with the terms of federal regulations by mailing its decision to the petitioner's or counsel's address of record. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1258-59 (9th Cir.1996); see also 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(f) (1995); 292.5(a). Here, the record reflects that the BIA did not send its decision to Kaur's counsel's last known address. See Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1258-59.
Summary dismissal was not appropriate because Kaur's Notice of Appeal sufficiently specified her grounds for appeal. See Casas-Chavez v. INS, 300 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir.2002); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i).
Because the BIA's summary dismissal was not appropriate, we remand to the BIA for further proceedings for a decision on the merits of Kaur's asylum and withholding of deportation claim. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12,16,123 S.Ct. 353,154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.