Bayasgalan Tserenochir v. Eric Holder, Jr.

MEMORANDUM

1. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) abused its discretion in denying Bayasgalan Tserenochir’s motion to reopen as untimely. Tserenochir was entitled to equitable tolling until March 25, 2010, when he consulted with his third and current lawyer, because “despite all due diligence” he was “unable to obtain [the] vital information” underlying his claim for reopening — the ineffectiveness of his initial counsel. See Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1193 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc). Our analysis in Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993 (9th Cir.2007), forecloses the BIA’s finding that Tserenochir did not exhibit due diligence. As in Ghahremani , Tserenochir hired new counsel after the BIA denied his initial appeal, a “paradigmatic” example of due diligence. Id. at 1000 . And as in Ghahremani , that Tsere-nochir’s second lawyer did not tell Tsere-nochir about the ineffectiveness of his first lawyer does not undermine Tserenochir’s claim of due diligence. Id. Equitable tolling ceased in March 2010 when Tsereno-chir learned of his initial counsel’s ineffectiveness, and Tserenochir filed his motion to reopen on April 19, 2010, within the 90-day ■ statutory window. See 8…