Case Name: Jose De Jesus Avila SANDOVAL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-02-21
Citations: 510 F. App'x 552
Docket Number: No. 09-72904
Parties: Jose De Jesus Avila SANDOVAL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BERZON and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and CARR, Senior District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 510
Pages: 552–552

Head Matter:
Jose De Jesus Avila SANDOVAL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-72904.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 12, 2013.
Filed Feb. 21, 2013.
Gabriel D. Miller, Esquire, Kendall Brill & Klieger LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Janette L. Allen, Esquire, Trial, Oil, DOJ-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: BERZON and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and CARR, Senior District Judge.
The Honorable James G. Carr, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose de Jesus Avila Sandoval ("Avila") petitions for review from the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying as untimely his motion to reopen removal proceedings. This Court previously instructed the BIA to consider whether Avila's motion should be deemed timely based on equitable tolling of the filing period. The BIA abused its discretion by rejecting the application of equitable tolling without any supporting factual or legal analysis. See Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.2005). On remand, the BIA shall, after considering arguments from the parties, reconsider whether Avila is entitled to equitable tolling and explain the reasons for its decision.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED AND REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.