Grigoryan

MEMORANDUM **

Svetlana Grigoryan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. The BIA concluded that even assuming that Grigoryan’s counsel was ineffective, she failed to demonstrate that she suffered prejudice as a result of that ineffectiveness. 1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a), and we grant the petition for review.

In order to establish prejudice, a petitioner must generally demonstrate that “ ‘the performance of counsel was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings.’ ” Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 793 (9th Cir.2005) (citing Ortiz v. INS, 179 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir.1999)). 2 That standard is plainly met here. Grigoryan’s former counsel filed a boilerplate brief to the BIA. The brief included a discussion of adverse credibility findings (despite the fact that no such finding had been made) and was al *744 most devoid of specific references to Gri-goryan’s case. What little of the brief was specific to Grigoryan did her more harm than good. Counsel conceded in…