Case Name: Benito ESTRADA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-22
Citations: 428 F. App'x 748
Docket Number: No. 08-74816
Parties: Benito ESTRADA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 428
Pages: 748–748

Head Matter:
Benito ESTRADA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-74816.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 20, 2011.
Filed April 22, 2011.
Patricia Vargas, Patricia Vargas & Associates, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
Keith Ian McManus, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Benito Estrada, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order sustaining the government's appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand.
The BIA concluded that the IJ lacked jurisdiction to reopen proceedings without the benefit of our decision in Reyes-Torres v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1073, 2011 WL 1312570 (9th Cir.2011) (mandate pending), in which we determined that 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(d) did not apply to preclude a motion to reopen filed after the petitioner had been removed. See Reyes-Torres, 645 F.3d at 1075-78, 2011 WL 1312570, at *2-*3 (citing Coyt v. Holder, 593 F.3d 902 (9th Cir. 2010)); see also Reynoso-Cisneros v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1001, 1002 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (treating departure bars to motions under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(d) and 1003.23(b)(1) as substantively identical). We remand to the BIA in light of this intervening case law.
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.