
    Musa Abdul IKHARO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 08-4139, 09-3587.
    United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
    Feb. 16, 2012.
    
      Before: GILMAN and WHITE, Circuit Judges; and THAPAR, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Amul R. Thapar, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.
    
   OPINION

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge.

This court’s judgment entered on August 2, 2010 was vacated by the Supreme Court on January 10, 2012 and the case remanded for further consideration in light of Judulang v. Holder, — U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 476, 181 L.Ed.2d 449 (2011). The Court in Judulang determined that the policy of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in its application of § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to deportation cases was “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

In the case before us, the BIA denied Musa Abdul Ikharo any consideration of relief under § 212(c) from the immigration judge’s order of deportation. That was due at least in part to the BIA’s now-discredited policy of applying the “comparable-grounds approach” as fully discussed in Judulang. The Supreme Court has called on the BIA “to devise another, equally economical policy respecting eligibility for § 212(c) relief, so long as it comports with everything held in both this decision and St. Cyr.” Judulang, 132 S.Ct. at 490. We therefore remand Ikha-ro’s case to the BIA for reconsideration in light of Judulang.  