Case ID: f-appx_404/html/0226-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Maria Aparacida LACERDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-74333.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Nov. 23, 2010.
    Alexander H. Lubarsky, Esquire, Yevgeniy Chechenin, Community Legal Centers, San Mateo, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      OIL, Blair O’Connor, Assistant Director, Claire Workman, Trial, DOJ-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: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maria Aparacida Lacerda, a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, Figueroa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487, 496 (9th Cir.2008), and we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

In denying Lacerda’s cancellation application, the agency failed to consider the potential hardship Lacerda’s two United States citizen children would suffer if Lacerda is removed to Brazil and her children are required to remain in the United States pursuant to a custody order. See Cabrera-Alvarez v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1006, 1012 (9th Cir.2005) (‘When the children will not accompany the removed parent, the agency must evaluate the hardship caused by that separation.”).

We need not reach Lacerda’s remaining contentions.

We grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA for further proceedings.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.