Summary
holding district court did not impermissibly engage in triple-counting when it relied on prior convictions to calculate criminal history category, enhance the offense level, and impose an upward variance
Summary of this case from United States v. Sanbria-BuenoOpinion
No. 06-74484.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed February 23, 2011.
Tsz-Hai Huang, Rai Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Lindsay Williams, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A077-428-513.
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Jatinder Pal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand.
At the time of its decision, the BIA did not have the benefit of the Attorney General's decision in Matter of Compean, 25 IN Dec. 1 (A.G. 2009) (BIA has power "to consider claims of ineffective assistance of counsel based on conduct of counsel that occurred after a final order of removal had been entered."). We therefore remand for the BIA to consider Singh's claim in light of this intervening caselaw.