Case Name: Alfredo SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-10
Citations: 259 F. App'x 23
Docket Number: No. 06-72952
Parties: Alfredo SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 259
Pages: 23–23

Head Matter:
Alfredo SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-72952.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 3, 2007 .
Filed Dec. 10, 2007.
Susan E. Hill, Esq., Hill Piibe & Ville-gas, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Jeffery R. Leist, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Alfredo Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge's decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand.
The BIA did not provide a reasoned explanation in its order denying Sanchez's motion to file an untimely brief, so we are unable to meaningfully review the order. See Garcia Gomez v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 1050, 1051 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (remanding where BIA order denying motion to file untimely brief stated only that reason was insufficient to accept the brief in the exercise of discretion). We remand for the BIA to either articulate its reasons for denying the motion, or consider Sanchez's brief.
We do not reach Sanchez's unexhausted ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
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.