Kumar

MEMORANDUM

Petitioners, the Kumars, are a Fijian family of East Indian descent who came to the United States in 1992 and were denied asylum in 1993. They have since filed three motions to reopen their proceedings, in 1999, 2005 and 2007. Before us now are consolidated petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denials of petitioners’ 2005 and 2007 motions to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b), Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir.2004), and review BIA rulings on motions to reopen for abuse of discretion. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005).

The BIA construed petitioners’ 2005 motion to reopen as raising only a claim of ineffective .assistance of counsel (“IAC”). Petitioners argue that the BIA abused its discretion by failing to recognize that the motion also raised a claim of changed country circumstances. We agree.

We do not require claims to the BIA to be made artfully or with precision; rather, a petitioner is merely required to put the BIA “on notice” that he intends to put an issue into contention. See Cheuk Fung S-Yong v. Holder, 578 F.3d 1169, 1173 (9th Cir.2009) (“inartful” brief put the BIA on…