Case Name: Rosa SANDOVAL BECERRA; Agustin Jaime Martinez Prieto; Marcela Alheli Martinez Sandoval, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-12
Citations: 176 F. App'x 793
Docket Number: No. 04-74285
Parties: Rosa SANDOVAL BECERRA; Agustin Jaime Martinez Prieto; Marcela Alheli Martinez Sandoval, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 176
Pages: 793–794

Head Matter:
Rosa SANDOVAL BECERRA; Agustin Jaime Martinez Prieto; Marcela Alheli Martinez Sandoval, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-74285.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2006.
Decided April 12, 2006.
Marc Van Der Hout, Esq., Van Der Hout & Brigagliano, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: HAWKINS, MCKEOWN and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rosa Sandoval Becerra, and her husband, Augustin Jaime Martinez Prieto, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 983 (9th Cir. 2005), we grant the petition for review.
The evidence Petitioners submitted with their motion to reopen indicates that their son's medical condition was not diagnosed until after the IJ had denied Petitioners' applications for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, the BIA abused its discretion in concluding that Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the evidence they presented with their motion was unavailable at their former hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); see also Bhasin, 423 F.3d at 987 (noting that where the evidence became available during the pendancy of an appeal it was not "previously available" for purposes of a motion to reopen).
We remand this case so that the agency may consider whether, in light of the new evidence presented, Petitioners have established eligibility for cancellation of removal.
Because we grant the petition for the reasons stated above, we do not consider Petitioners' due process contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.