Case ID: f-appx_669/html/0370-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sergio Perez HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-73155
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 13, 2016 
    
    FILED September 21, 2016
    Raul Ernesto Godinez, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Raul E. Godinez, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
    Rachel Louise Browning, Trial Attorney, Scott Michael Marconda, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of ImmigraT tion Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sergio Perez Hernandez, 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 removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand.

Perez Hernandez submitted with his BIA appeal brief a police report corroborating his immigration court testimony that he was the victim of a domestic violence incident. Based on the BIA’s statement in footnote three of its decision, the BIA ignored the police report and appears to mistakenly believe Perez Hernandez was convicted in the incident. Accordingly, we remand for the BIA to consider this evidence in the first instance. See Singh v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1170, 1172 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The BIA is obligated to consider and address in its entirety the evidence submitted by a petitioner, and where its failure to do so could have affected its decision, remand is appropriate.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

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