The Board has frequently granted motions to reopen, sua sponte, after a conviction has been vacated. E.g., In Re: Jose Noel Meza-Perez A.K.A. Jose Noel Perez, 2011 Wl 899604 (BIA 2011) (unpublished) (The sole conviction underlying the respondent's removability under section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) (crime of domestic violence), has been vacated due to a defect in the criminal proceedings. The Board, therefore, will grant the respondent's motion sua sponte and terminate the proceedings.); In Re: Cesar Gomez-Rivas A.K.A. Cesar Gomez A.K.A. Cesar Rivas Gomez, : A041 830 317 - IMP, 2011 WL 4730892, at *1 (BIA 2011) (unpublished) (reopening an untimely motion to reopen after the respondent was deported because the conviction that formed the basis for the deportation was vacated on a legally invalidity); In Re: Francisco Antonio Jimenez Dilone A.K.A. Francisco Jimenez A.K.A. Franciso Jimenez A.K.A. Franciso Antonio Jimenez-Dilone, : A039 093 312 - BOS, 2009 WL 422063, at *1-2 (BIA 2009) (unpublished) ( Given this new evidence [regarding the vacatur of a conviction], we find that sua sponte reopening is appropriate despite the time bar, and will reopen proceedings and remand the record to the Immigration Judge.); In Re: Ignacio Javier Perez-Hernandez A.K.A. Javier Ignacio Perez, Jr. A.K.A. Ignacio Hernandez, : A092 259 726 - LOS, 2013 WL 3899855, at *1 (BIA July 18, 2013) (unpublished) (The evidence offered with the motion reveals that on Apr. 6, 2011, the criminal court granted the respondent's motion, pursuant to California Penal Code section 1016.5, to vacate the conviction underlying his removability, and permitted him to plead to a lesser offence. See Motion Tab F. California Penal Code section 1016.5 requires that a criminal defendant must be advised of the potential immigration consequences of entering a plea of guilty prior to entering the plea. Inasmuch as the conviction underlying the sole basis of the respondent's removability has been vacated due to a substantive defect in the criminal proceedings, reopening is warranted. See Matter of Pickering, 23 I&N Dec. 621 (BIA 2003); Matter of Rodriguez-Ruiz, 22 I&N Dec. 1378 (BIA 2000).)(emphasis supplied). See also Mendiola v. Holder, 576 F. App'x 828, 835-36 (10th Cir. 2014) (unpublished); Zambrano-Reyes v. Holder, 725 F.3d 744, 751 (7th Cir. 2013); Anaya"Aguilar v. Holder, 697 F.3d 1189 (7th Cir.2012); Pllumi v. Attorney Gen. of U.S., 642 F.3d 155, 160 (3d Cir. 2011); Mahmood v. Holder, 570 F.3d 466, 470 (2d Cir. 2009).

Thanks to Stacy Tolchin.