Khurana

Khurana v. Holder

Good Law
344 F. App'x 343
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 31, 2009No. 06-72664California442 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Gurpreet Khurana, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and de novo claims of due process violations, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in immigration proceedings. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We grant the petition for review and remand.

The BIA abused its discretion when it concluded that Khurana failed to exercise the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the 90-day motions deadline. See Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 1000 (9th Cir.2007) (due diligence where petitioner repeatedly sought new counsel in pursuit of relief). Khurana timely retained current counsel after her original petition for review was denied, and filed the motion to reopen within 90 days of her counsel receiving the administrative record and reviewing it with Khurana. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003) (motions deadline tolled until petitioner meets with…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.