Rani v. Holder , 471 F. App'x 777 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           MAR 15 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    RAJESH RANI; AJAI PAL SINGH                      No. 07-72341
    KANWAR,
    Agency Nos. A046-330-775
    Petitioners,                                  A046-866-696
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted March 6, 2012 **
    Before:        B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    Rajesh Rani and Ajai Pal Singh Kanwar, natives and citizens of India,
    petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying
    their 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 review de novo claims
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    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 for further proceedings.
    Contrary to the BIA’s determination, petitioners were prejudiced by their
    former counsel’s failure to present an asylum claim based on past harm to
    members of Rani’s husband’s family because petitioners had a plausible claim that
    this harm was on account of a protected ground. See 
    id. at 794
     (prejudice is
    established when counsel’s errors “may have affected the outcome of the
    proceedings”) (citation omitted). It follows that the BIA abused its discretion in
    denying petitioners’ motion to reopen. We therefore grant the petition for review
    and remand to the BIA with instructions to reopen and remand the case to the
    immigration judge for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.
    In light of our disposition, we need not address petitioners’ remaining
    contentions.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
    2                                     07-72341
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-72341

Citation Numbers: 471 F. App'x 777

Judges: Fletcher, Reinhardt, Tashima

Filed Date: 3/15/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024