Dilbagh Singh Dilbar; Gurpreet Singh v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DILBAGH SINGH DILBAR;
GURPREET SINGH,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73990
Agency Nos. A070-663-614
A076-671-615
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Dilbagh Singh Dilbar and Gurpreet Singh, natives and citizens of India,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying
their motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
FILED
JUL 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-73990 2
a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we
grant and remand the petition for review.
The BIA abused its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen
where the record indicates that petitioners’ first attorney failed to properly notify
petitioners of their hearing date. See Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (equitable
tolling available where petitioner is prevented from filing because of “deception,
fraud, or error”); see also AR 20-21. We therefore remand for further proceedings.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --