Case Name: SIAK MING HENG, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-21
Citations: 255 F. App'x 213
Docket Number: No. 04-71685
Parties: SIAK MING HENG, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 255
Pages: 213–213

Head Matter:
SIAK MING HENG, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-71685.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Filed Nov. 21, 2007.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2007.
Kathleen S. Koh, Law Offices of Kathleen S. Koh, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA; Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, John E. Cunningham, II, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division/Fraud Section, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Siak Ming Heng, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reconsider its previous order dismissing as untimely Heng's appeal from an Immigration Judge's decision denying his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. See Oh v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 611, 612 (9th Cir.2005). We grant the petition for review and remand.
The BIA dismissed Heng's appeal for lack of jurisdiction before our decision in Oh v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 611 (9th Cir.2005). We remand for the BIA to consider, in light of Oh, whether Heng demonstrated "rare circumstances" warranting consideration of his late appeal. See id. at 614 (granting and remanding where the appeal was late due to an Airborne Express error, and where the BIA's denial was "predicated entirely on its misconstruction of the jurisdictional nature of its own filing deadline"), 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.