an affidavit accompanying her motion she argued that the Mohammed decision was a change in U.S. law materially affecting her ability to apply for asylum, and that her untimely filing should be excused pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D) and the implementing regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(4)(i). In her brief before the BIA in support of her motion she presented the issue in much the same language. The BIA did not respond to Mrs. Mwangi’s contention. The BIA incorrectly interpreted her reference to Mohammed in her motion as a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. By failing to consider the merits of Mrs. Mwangi’s argument in her Motion for Remand, the BIA abused its discretion. See Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.2008). See also Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 791 (<HOLDING>); Maravilla v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 855, 858 (9th
holding that because petitioner made no effort to demonstrate that the affidavits and additional documentary evidence she submitted in support of her motion to reopen met the requirements under 8 cfr  10032c1 the bia was not obligated to consider them holding that bia abused its discretion in denying motion to reopen holding that the bia abused its discretion when it denied petitioners motion to reopen by failing to consider evidence of country conditions holding that the bia abused its discretion in issuing an incomplete and nonsensical opinion that failed to consider the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner holding that the bia abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen when it failed to consider the argument before it