Case Name: Jorge Lozano VALLE, 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 583
Docket Number: No. 09-73606
Parties: Jorge Lozano VALLE, 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: 583–584

Head Matter:
Jorge Lozano VALLE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-73606.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2011.
Filed June 9, 2011.
Susan Elizabeth Hill, Hill, Piibe & Ville-gas, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Justin Robert Markel, 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
Jorge Lozano Valle, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's order denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. 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.
The agency appears to adopt an incorrect legal standard, conflating events that warrant suspicion of former counsel's conduct with actual knowledge of former counsel's alleged errors. See Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1096 (9th Cir.2007) ("[Suspicion of the deficient representation does not constitute definitive knowledge of the alleged fraud."). Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and remand to the agency. See generally INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam) ("[T]he proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand to the agency for additional investigation or explanation.") (citation omitted).
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.