Case ID: f-appx_443/html/0294-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

YUBIN ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74403.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted July 12, 2011.
    
    Filed July 18, 2011.
    Yubin Zhang, Monterey Park, CA, pro se.
    Andrew B. Insenga, Trial, Oil, Carol Federighi, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, William Charles Peachey, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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: O’SCANNLAIN and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and PIERSOL, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, Senior United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Yubin Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Bureau of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying his motion to file a late brief and summarily dismissing his appeal. The facts are known to the parties and need not be repeated here except to the extent necessary.

We have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision to deny a motion to file an untimely appeal brief. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 & n. 2 (9th Cir.2010). The BIA’s order denying Zhang’s motion states: ‘We find the reason stated by [Zhang] insufficient for us to accept the untimely brief in our exercise of discretion.” The absence of a reasoned explanation for denying the motion prevents us from performing any meaningful appellate review. See Garcia Gomez v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 1050, 1051 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam). Therefore, we remand the matter to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.

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