Case ID: f-appx_398/html/0230-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Daniel Ramirez ROSETE; Margarita Cortez de Ramirez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73393.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 1, 2010.
    Daniel Ramirez Rósete, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Margarita Cortez de Ramirez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Drew Brinkman, OIL, 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: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Daniel Ramirez Rósete and Margarita Cortez De Ramirez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reissue. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Hemandez-Velasquez v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1073,1077 (9th Cir.2010), we grant the petition for review and remand.

The BIA abused its discretion by failing to specifically address petitioners’ evidence that they did not receive notice of the BIA’s September 28, 2007, order. See Singh v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1170, 1172-73 (9th Cir.2007) (BIA is obligated to consider and address the evidence submitted by petitioner). We remand for the BIA to address petitioners’ evidence of non-receipt in the first instance and determine whether it is sufficient to overcome the presumption of mailing. See id.

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.