
    Ramon CANIZALEZ CHAVEZ; Florencia Canizalez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-75930.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 18, 2009.
    
    Filed March 2, 2009.
    Alfredo Garcia Flores, Esq., Huntington Park, CA, for Petitioners.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Carol A. Chen, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney Civil & Tax Divisions, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ramon Canizalez Chavez and Florencia Canizalez, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, 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 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to.reopen. Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 595 (9th Cir.2004). We grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

The BIA abused its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen because strict compliance with the requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), would have been futile. See Morales Apolinar v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 893, 897 (9th Cir.2008) (“[W]here a petitioner’s attorney has been suspended after failing to respond to prior charges of ineffective assistance, it would be futile for the petitioner to inform counsel of the accusations or file a complaint.”). We therefore remand for the BIA to reconsider petitioners’ motion to reopen. See 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.
     