Case ID: f-appx_382/html/0654-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nicacio SAUSTEGUI-NAVA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74285.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 9, 2010.
    Jan Joseph Bejar, Esquire, Law Offices of Jan Joseph Bejar, a Professional Law Corporation, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Arthur Leonid Rabin, Trial, James A. Hurley, Mark Christopher Walters, Esquire, Assistant Director, 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: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nicacio Saustegui-Nava, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand.

The agency incorrectly concluded that the Notice to Appear (“NTA”) ended Saustegui-Nava’s accrual of physical presence where the NTA failed to specify the time and date of his hearing. See Garcia-Ramirez v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 935, 937 n. 3 (9th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (where NTA failed to specify the hearing date or location, accrual of physical presence ended upon service of proper hearing notice); see also Popa v. Holder, 571 F.3d 890, 896 (9th Cir.2009).

We remand for the agency to determine whether Saustegui-Nava meets the other requirements for cancellation of removal.

The parties shall bear their own costs for this petition for review.

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.