Case ID: f-appx_467/html/0565-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dina Maribel LUNA-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72812.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
    
    Filed Jan. 24, 2012.
    Raul Gomez, Esquire, Araceli S. PerezBrizo, Esquire, Law Office of Raul Gomez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Sharon Michele Clay, Esquire, Trial, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Susan Houser, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Dina Maribel Luna-Ramirez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen and reconsider its underlying decision dismissing as untimely her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen and reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785 (9th Cir.2005). We grant the petition for review and remand.

The BIA dismissed Luna-Ramirez’s appeal on jurisdictional grounds, as untimely, without the benefit of our decision in Irigoyen-Briones v. Holder, 644 F.3d 943, 948 (9th Cir.2011) (holding that the BIA’s 30-day deadline for appeals is a claim-processing rule and is not jurisdictional). We therefore remand for the agency to reconsider whether, under the circumstances presented, it will hear the appeal from the IJ’s decision in this case. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16, 123 S.Ct. 353,154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002).

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.