
    Sergio De La MORA-MORFIN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-76395.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 28, 2008.
    
    Filed Nov. 4, 2008.
    Peter Singh, Esquire, Peter Singh & Associates, P.C., Fresno, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAS-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Alison Drucker, Esquire, Donald E. Keener, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sergio de la Mora-Morfin, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

De la Mora-Morfin contends that the IJ violated his right to counsel by denying him a continuance and proceeding in the absence of prior counsel, who he alleges provided him ineffective assistance. Although de la Mora-Morfin raised these contentions in his appeal to the BIA, the BIA failed to address them. See Montes-Lopez v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 1163, 1165 (9th Cir.2007) (“[T]he BIA errs when it fails on appeal to consider and decide claims that the IJ proceedings suffered from procedural irregularity.”). We therefore remand for further proceedings. Id.; see generally Hernandez-Gil v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 803 (9th Cir.2007).

The Attorney General’s motion to withdraw an argument is granted.

De la Mora-Morfin’s counsel is cautioned that his error-filled opening brief does not meet this court’s standards. See generally Fed. R.App. P. 28; 9th Cir. R. 28-2.8.

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.
     