Case Name: Veena SANDHU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-31
Citations: 320 F. App'x 745
Docket Number: No. 07-70953
Parties: Veena SANDHU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 320
Pages: 745–745

Head Matter:
Veena SANDHU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-70953.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2009.
Filed March 31, 2009.
Inna Lipkin, Esquire, Counsel, Law Offices of Inna Lipkin, Edwood City, CA, for Petitioner.
Katharine Clark, Esquire, Trial, Barry J. Pettinato, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Veena Sandhu, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 997 (9th Cir.2007), and we grant the petition for review and remand.
The BIA abused its discretion by denying Sandhu's motion as untimely despite her demonstrated due diligence in learning of her former counsel's possible ineffectiveness. See id. at 1000 (petitioner's "unbroken efforts to retain competent counsel and file a motion to reopen" demonstrate due diligence). The 90-day filing deadline should have begun to run in September 2006; therefore, Sandhu's motion to reopen, filed on October 19, 2006, was timely. Id.
We remand to the BIA for consideration of the merits of Sandhu's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Id. at 1000-01.
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.