Case ID: f-appx_702/html/0655-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Baldemar GONZALEZ-VENUSTIANO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-73975
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 15, 2017 
    
    Filed November 20, 2017
    David Williams, Law Offices of David W. Williams, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner
    Chief Counsel ICE, .Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P, 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Baldemar Gonzalez-Venustiano, 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 decision pretermit-ting his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand.

The BIA did not have the benefit of Losano-Arredondo v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2017), which set aside the BIA’s interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C) in Matter of Cortez Canales, 25 I. & N. Dec. 301 (BIA 2010), when it pretermitted cancellation of removal. Thus, we remand the petition for review for further proceedings consistent with that disposition.

We do not reach the government’s contentions regarding Gonzalez-Venustiano’s alleged ineligibility for cancellation of removal under Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 649 (9th Cir. 2004). See Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 658 n.16 (9th Cir. 2000).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.