
    Koko KRIKOR-MOTOFIAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-76603.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted May 16, 2007 .
    Filed June 1, 2007.
    James L. Rosenberg, Esq., Law Offices of James L. Rosenberg, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David B. Edwards, FDIC — Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Legal Division, Dallas, TX, Daniel G. Lonergan, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Koko Krikor-Motofian, a native and citizen of Lebanon, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Konstantinova v. INS, 195 F.3d 528, 529 (9th Cir.1999). We grant the petition for review.

The IJ abused his discretion in finding that Krikor-Motofian failed to rebut the presumption of proper service where Krikor-Motofian submitted a sworn affidavit stating that he did not receive the notice of hearing because although he lived at the same street address, the apartment number was erroneous, and where the in absentia order was returned to the Post Office as delivery “attempted — not known.” See Salta v. INS, 314 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir.2002).

Accordingly, we grant the petition and remand for further proceedings. INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-17, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     