Case Name: Juan FIGUEROA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-29
Citations: 378 F. App'x 603
Docket Number: No. 07-74448
Parties: Juan FIGUEROA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 378
Pages: 603–603

Head Matter:
Juan FIGUEROA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74448.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 13, 2010.
Filed April 29, 2010.
Cesar Rodrigo Ternieden, Esquire, Law Office of Cesar R. Ternieden, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Michele Yvette Frances Sarko, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") October 2007 order denying his motion to reopen his deportation proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA for reconsideration of petitioner's motion to reopen.
Because the government agrees that the matter should be remanded to the BIA on an open record for full reconsideration of petitioner's motion to reopen, we do not reach any of the discrete issues raised by either party. On remand, the BIA will consider all issues the parties have raised, including whether petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling of the deadline for filing his motion to reopen, whether counsel's failure to argue during petitioner's deportation proceedings that petitioner's conviction did not amount to an aggravated felony in light of United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 247 F.3d 905 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc), amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel, and whether counsel's failure to file a motion to reopen based on petitioner's alleged back injury amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel.
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.