Case Name: Alvaro PULIDO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-08
Citations: 436 F. App'x 817
Docket Number: No. 08-72486
Parties: Alvaro PULIDO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 436
Pages: 817–818

Head Matter:
Alvaro PULIDO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-72486.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Sumitted May 24, 2011.
Filed June 8, 2011.
Jose Alfredo Hernandez, Esquire, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner.
James Eugene Grimes, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, 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
Alvaro Pulido, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings held in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Salta v. INS, 314 F.3d 1076, 1078 (9th Cir.2002), we grant the petition for review.
The agency abused its discretion in denying Pulido's motion to reopen where he rebutted the presumption of effective service by submitting sworn declarations explaining why he and his wife had not received the Notice to Appear ("NTA"), and the record did not contain proof of attempted delivery to Pulido's address. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229(c) (service of NTA by mail is sufficient if there is proof of attempted delivery to alien's last address); Arrieta v. INS, 117 F.3d 429, 432 (9th Cir.1997) (letter by petitioner is substantial and probative evidence that may rebut presumption of effective service).
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.