22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4b7,MEMORANDUM Moisés Exzequiel Diaz Maldonado and Isaura Yaneth Diaz, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to remand and reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand, de Jesus Melendez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1019, 1021 (9th Cir.2007). We grant the petition for review and remand. The BIA abused its discretion when it addressed prejudice under a standard that required petitioners to demonstrate they “would have prevailed” but for deficient performance of counsel. See Maravilla Maravilla v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 855, 858 (9th Cir.2004) (per curiam) (holding that petitioner “need not show that [she] would win or lose on any claims”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). We remand so that the BIA can address prejudice under the proper legal standard. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16 , 123 S.Ct. 353 , 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam). PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4e4,

MEMORANDUM

Moisés Exzequiel Diaz Maldonado and Isaura Yaneth Diaz, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to remand and reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand, de Jesus Melendez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1019, 1021 (9th Cir.2007). We grant the petition for review and remand.

The BIA abused its discretion when it addressed prejudice under a standard that required petitioners to demonstrate they “would have prevailed” but for deficient performance of counsel. See Maravilla Maravilla v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 855, 858 (9th Cir.2004) (per curiam) (holding that petitioner “need not show that [she] would win or lose on any claims”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). We remand so that the BIA can address prejudice under the proper legal standard. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16 , 123 S.Ct. 353 , 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

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.