Case Name: Sandra Violeta Ramirez MAZARIEGOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-13
Citations: 471 F. App'x 715
Docket Number: No. 09-70543
Parties: Sandra Violeta Ramirez MAZARIEGOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 471
Pages: 715–716

Head Matter:
Sandra Violeta Ramirez MAZARIEGOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-70543.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 6, 2012.
Filed March 13, 2012.
Sandra Violeta Ramirez Mazariegos, Bakersfield, CA, pro se.
Jane Tracey Schaffner, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, 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
Sandra Violeta Ramirez Mazariegos, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and we review de novo claims of ineffective assistance in immigration proceedings, 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 when it denied Mazariegos's motion to reopen for failure to establish prejudice, because Mazariegos presented a plausible claim for relief, and her notary's failure to file a brief to the BIA may have affected the outcome of her removal proceedings. See Singh v. Holder, 658 F.3d 879, 887 (9th Cir.2011).
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.