Case ID: f-appx_328/html/0441-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ignacio RIOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74594.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 16, 2009.
    
    Filed July 1, 2009.
    Alejandro Garcia, Law Offices of Alejandro Garcia, Commerce, CA, for Petitioner.
    Brooke Maurer, Trial, Joan Estelle Smiley, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ignacio Rios, 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 motion to terminate proceedings and his application for caneel-lation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing de novo, Sinotes-Cruz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1190, 1194 (9th Cir.2006), we grant the petition for review and remand.

The agency incorrectly concluded that the Notice to Appear (“NTA”) ended Rios’ period of continuous residence as a lawful permanent resident because the NTA failed to specify the date or location of Rios’ hearing. See Garcia-Ramirez v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 935, 937 n. 3 (9th Cir.2005) (per curiam).

We remand for the agency to determine, in the first instance, the date Rios’ accrual of continuous residence was terminated. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 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.