FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FELIPE GARCIA GOMEZ; CIRA NILA 

HERRERA, No. 06-70941

Petitioner, Agency Nos.

v.  A95-443-614

A95-443-615 ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney

General, OPINION

Respondent. 

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 13, 2007*

San Francisco, California

Filed August 21, 2007

Before: Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, Michael Daly Hawkins,

and Kim McLane Wardlaw, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam Opinion

*This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

10195
COUNSEL

Susan E. Hill, Hill, Piibe & Villegas, Los Angeles, California,

for the petitioners. 

Peter D. Keisler, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, and Andrew B.

Insenga, Office of Immigration Litigation, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the respondent. 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Felipe Garcia Gomez and Cira Nila-Herrera (“the Garcias”), natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their

motion for leave to file a late brief and denial of their application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). 

The Garcias submitted supporting declarations explaining

that their brief was late due to the mail carrier’s failure to

deliver the notice of the briefing schedule to the correct

address. Denying the Garcias’ motion, the BIA conclusorily

reasoned: “We find the reason stated by the respondents

insufficient for us to accept the untimely brief in our exercise

of discretion.” 

[1] Although the BIA recognized its discretion to grant the

motion, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3b(b)(1) (“The [BIA], upon written motion, may extend the period for filing a brief . . . for up

to 90 days for good cause shown.”)), its order did not offer

“some reasoned explanation” for denying the motion, Oh v.

Gonzales, 406 F.3d 611, 613 (9th Cir. 2005). The BIA’s order

is thus inadequate for us to perform any meaningful appellate

review. “Immigration judges, although given significant disGOMEZ v. GONZALES 10197
cretion, . . . must indicate how they . . . arrived at their conclusion.” Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th

Cir.2005) (internal quotations and brackets omitted)). 

[2] We agree with the approach taken by the Seventh Circuit addressing an identically worded BIA order, denying a

motion to accept a late-filed brief. See Gutierrez-Almazan v.

Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 1774027, at *2-3 (7th Cir.

Jun. 21, 2007). The Seventh Circuit held that the BIA’s

“sparse ruling was inadequate to enable [the court of appeals]

to perform any meaningful review,” explaining that the BIA’s

decision provided “no indication that it took account of . . .

[any] factors that might be relevant to the merits of the

motion.” Id. at *3. We are similarly “unable to determine

from the BIA’s conclusory statement whether it abused its

discretion by refusing to accept [the Garcias’] late brief.” See

id. We therefore remand the petition to the BIA. 

Because the BIA could reach a different conclusion on its

hardship determination if it considers the Garcias’ brief on

remand, we do not reach the Garcias’ other legal or constitutional claims. 

REMANDED. 

10198 GOMEZ v. GONZALES