Case Name: Martha Elena Carpio GUERRA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-09
Citations: 437 F. App'x 590
Docket Number: No. 09-73638
Parties: Martha Elena Carpio GUERRA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 437
Pages: 590–591

Head Matter:
Martha Elena Carpio GUERRA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-73638.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2011.
Filed June 9, 2011.
Ian Silverberg, Esquire, Hardy Law Group, Reno, NV, for Petitioner.
Marion Guyton, Esquire, Trial, OIL, Daniel Shieh, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, 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
Martha Elena Carpió Guerra, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir.2005), we grant the petition for review and remand.
The BIA decided this case without the benefit of our decision in Perdomo v. Holder, in which we remanded for the agency to determine "whether women in Guatemala constitute a particular social group, and, if so, whether [petitioner] has demonstrated a fear of persecution" on account of her membership in a protected group. 611 F.3d 662, 669 (9th Cir.2010). Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA for further proceedings. 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.