Case Name: Moises Exzequiel DIAZ MALDONADO; Isaura Yaneth Diaz, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-01
Citations: 435 F. App'x 615
Docket Number: No. 08-70034
Parties: Moises Exzequiel DIAZ MALDONADO; Isaura Yaneth Diaz, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 435
Pages: 615–615

Head Matter:
Moises Exzequiel DIAZ MALDONADO; Isaura Yaneth Diaz, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-70034.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2011.
Filed June 1, 2011.
Maziar Razi, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Anthony Paul Nicastro, 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: 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
Moisés Exzequiel Diaz Maldonado and Isaura Yaneth Diaz, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to remand and reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand, de Jesus Melendez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1019, 1021 (9th Cir.2007). We grant the petition for review and remand.
The BIA abused its discretion when it addressed prejudice under a standard that required petitioners to demonstrate they "would have prevailed" but for deficient performance of counsel. See Maravilla Maravilla v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 855, 858 (9th Cir.2004) (per curiam) (holding that petitioner "need not show that [she] would win or lose on any claims") (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). We remand so that the BIA can address prejudice under the proper legal standard. 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.