Case Name: Jon-Musa AROUSH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-13
Citations: 399 F. App'x 291
Docket Number: No. 08-72994
Parties: Jon-Musa AROUSH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 399
Pages: 291–292

Head Matter:
Jon-Musa AROUSH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-72994.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Oct. 13, 2010.
Marc Jason Wigul, Law Offices of Marc J. Wigul, Encino, CA, for Petitioner.
Oil, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Jesse Matthew Bless, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, 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: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Jon-Musa Aroush, a native and citizen of Syria, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order de nying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and de novo claims of due process violations in removal proceedings, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We grant the petition for review and remand.
The BIA abused its discretion in denying Aroush's motion to reopen for lack of due diligence. See Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 999-1000 (9th Cir.2007).
We remand to the BIA to allow it to consider the remaining issues in the first instance. 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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.