Case Name: Candy WIJAYA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-02
Citations: 302 F. App'x 641
Docket Number: No. 05-70294
Parties: Candy WIJAYA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 302
Pages: 641–642

Head Matter:
Candy WIJAYA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-70294.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 24, 2008.
Filed Dec. 2, 2008.
Robert G. Ryan, Esq., Law Offices of Eugene C. Wong, PC, San Francisco, CA, FOR Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Patricia A. Smith, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Candy Wijaya, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reconsider its prior order dismissing her appeal as untimely filed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Oh v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 611, 612 (9th Cir.2005), we grant the petition for review and remand.
Wijaya's motion to reconsider attached several exhibits supporting her argument that her late-filed appeal be considered timely due to ineffective assistance of counsel. See BIA Practice Manual, Ch. 3.1(c)(ii) (permitting submission of evidence with motions to re-file untimely appeals or motions). As the BIA's December 17, 2004 decision does not indicate that it considered Wijaya's argument or evidence, we remand to allow the BIA to exercise its discretion regarding Wijaya's request. See Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.2005) (BIA must provide specific and cogent reasons for its decision in order to provide court a reasoned decision to review).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-P3.