Case ID: f-appx_417/html/0650-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pablo Enrique PEREZ-GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73760.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed March 1, 2011.
    Michelle Gonzalez, Esquire, Michelle Gonzalez, Inc., Huntington Park, CA, for Petitioner.
    Gerald Alexander, Trial, OIL, 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: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Pablo Enrique Perez-Gomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen to seek adjustment of status based on his marriage to a United States citizen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Malhi v. INS 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003), and we grant the petition for review and remand.

The BIA abused its discretion in concluding that the evidence Perez-Gomez presented with his June 11, 2008, motion to reopen failed to clearly and convincingly establish a bona fide marriage where the evidence demonstrated ample co-mingling of personal assets, co-habitation, and that Perez-Gomez had known his wife for at least five years prior to the marriage. See Matter of Velarde-Pacheco, 23 I. & N. Dec. 253, 256 (BIA 2002) (en banc).

We need not reach Perez-Gomez’s remaining contention. We remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.

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.