Case Name: Jaypal SINGH, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-12
Citations: 269 F. App'x 772
Docket Number: No. 05-71914
Parties: Jaypal SINGH, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 269
Pages: 772–773

Head Matter:
Jaypal SINGH, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-71914.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 26, 2008.
Filed March 12, 2008.
Jaypal Singh, Kent, WA, pro se.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, James A. Hunolt, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jaypal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings pending the adjudication of his U Visa application. We grant the petition for review and remand.
At the time of its order, the BIA did not have the benefit of regulatory guidance regarding U Visas or of our decision in Ramirez Sanchez v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir.2007). The regulations make clear that the BIA has the authority to continue proceedings at the request of a petitioner who has applied for a U Visa or to terminate proceedings without prejudice at the joint request of the petitioner and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.14(c)(l)(i); see also 72 Fed.Reg. 53022 n. 10 ("While this rule specifically addresses joint motions to terminate, it does not preclude the parties from requesting a continuance of the proceedings."); 8 C.F.R. § 214.14(c)(l)(ii) (providing that a U Visa petitioner who is subject to a final removal order may request a stay of removal). We remand to the BIA to consider Singh's request for reopening in light of the new U Visa regulations as a request for a continuance, or to consider any joint motion for a stay or termination. On remand, Singh may submit to the BIA any additional evidence that he may have with respect to his application for a U Visa.
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.