Case Name: Kiranpal SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-14
Citations: 375 F. App'x 772
Docket Number: No. 07-71167
Parties: Kiranpal SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 375
Pages: 772–773

Head Matter:
Kiranpal SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71167.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 14, 2010.
Saad Ahmad, Fremont, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, 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
Kiranpal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law, including claims of due process violations due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We grant the petition for review and remand.
The BIA abused its discretion in basing its prejudice inquiry on a heightened standard where it concluded that petitioner "failed to establish that the outcome of his case would have been different." See Maravilla Maravilla v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 855, 859 (9th Cir.2004) (per curiam) (BIA abused its discretion by analyzing prejudice under too stringent a standard where "[i]t should have asked only whether [prior counsel's] . performance may have affected the proceedings"). We therefore remand for the BIA to reconsider prejudice and whether petitioner established grounds for equitably tolling the regulatory filing deadline.
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.