Case ID: f-appx_128/html/0018-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Marcos CARDENAS, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-71169.
    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 Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Lagu-na Niguel, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Marion E. Guyton, Attorney, DOJ-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

Marcos Cardenas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application 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. 
      
       This 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.