Case ID: f-appx_424/html/0628-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Oscar Nelson GUZMAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 05-76993, 07-70498.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2011.
    
    Filed March 25, 2011.
    John Stephen Glaser, Reyna Tanner, Manulkin Glaser & Bennett, Fountain Valley, CA, for Petitioner.
    Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, OIL, Andrew Jacob Oliveira, Esquire, Trial, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated petitions for review, Oscar Nelson Guzman, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order and denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). In 05-76993, we grant the petition for review and remand. In 07-70498, we dismiss the petition for review.

In dismissing Guzman’s appeal, the BIA failed to address his contention that he is eligible for adjustment of status in conjunction with a waiver under former 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repeal effective April 1, 1997), pursuant to Matter of Azurin, 23 I. & N. Dec. 695 (BIA 2005). We therefore grant the petition for review in No. 05-76993 and remand to the agency to consider this contention in the first instance. See Brezilien v. Holder, 569 F.3d 403, 412 (9th Cir.2009) (BIA is not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner).

In light of our remand, we do not reach Guzman’s remaining contentions related to the dismissal of his appeal or case No. 07-70498.

In No. 05-76993: PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

In No. 07-70498: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.