Case ID: f-appx_382/html/0631-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ana Epifania Gonzalez TALAMANTES, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71537.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 8, 2010.
    Ana Epifanía Gonzalez Talamantes, pro se.
    David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Oil, Colette Jabes Winston, Esquire, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, 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: 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

Ana Epifanía Gonzalez Talamantes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reissue the BIA’s prior order. We review for abuse of discretion, Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005), and we grant the petition and remand for further proceedings.

The BIA abused its discretion by failing to address the declaration Gonzalez Tala-mantes submitted to show that she did not receive the BIA’s November 22, 2006 order. See Singh v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1170, 1172 (9th Cir.2007) (presumption of proper mailing created by transmittal of cover letter may be overcome by evidence of non-receipt by a petitioner or counsel). We remand for the BIA to review the evidence in the first instance and to determine whether it is sufficient to overcome the presumption of mailing.

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.