Case ID: f-appx_120/html/0741-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Leonardo INIGUEZ-IBARRA and Maria Refugio Acosta de Iniguez, Petitioners, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-70980.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 7, 2005.
    
    Decided Feb. 11, 2005.
    Miguel D. Gadda, Law Offices of Miguel D. Gadda, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Aviva Poczter, Office of Immigration and Litigation, Emily A. Rad-ford, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: FERNANDEZ, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
      The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Leonardo Iniguez-Ibarra and his wife, Maria Refugio Acosta de Iniguez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for cancellation of removal. We vacate and remand.

The IJ denied relief for failure to demonstrate the requisite hardship and period of continuous physical presence, and the BIA summarily affirmed. Because the BIA’s “affirmance without opinion endorses only the result of the IJ’s decision and not its reasoning, we do not know whether the BIA’s decision was based on the reviewable or unreviewable ground, or both.” Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 927 (9th Cir.2004). Therefore, “intelligent exercise of our appellate jurisdiction” requires that we vacate and remand. Id. at 932.

VACATED AND REMANDED. 
      
       ■j’jjjg disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.