Case Name: Emilio GARCIA-LARA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-21
Citations: 633 F. App'x 446
Docket Number: No. 13-70638
Parties: Emilio GARCIA-LARA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 633
Pages: 446–447

Head Matter:
Emilio GARCIA-LARA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-70638.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 15, 2016.
Filed March 21, 2016.
Emilio Garcia-Lara, Oakland, CA, pro se.
Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anthony W. Nor-wood, Senior Litigation Counsel OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, 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
Emilio Garcia-Lara, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions. of law. Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder, 702 F.3d 504, 512 n. 6 (9th Cir.2012) (en banc). We grant the petition for review and remand.
The agency erred in concluding that the holding in Matter of Briones, 24 I. & N. Dec. 355 (BIA 2007), applied retroactively to render Garcia-Lara ineligible to adjust status. See Acosta-Olivarria v. Lynch, 799 F.3d 1271, 1275-77 (9th Cir.2015); Garfias-Rodriguez, 702 F.3d at 520 (holding that analysis under Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. FTC, 691 F.2d 1322 (9th Cir.1982), is necessary to determine retroactive effect of Briones). Like the petitioner in Acosta-Olivarria v. Lynch, Gareia-Lara applied for adjustment of status in the 21-month window between Acosta v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 550 (9th Cir.2006) (permitting adjustment of status for an alien inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I)), and Briones, when it was reasonable for Garcia-Lara to rely on our decision in Acosta. See Acostctr-Olivarria, 799 F.3d at 1275-77. As there is no significant factual basis to distinguish Garcia-Lara's situation from the one presented in Acostctr-Olivarria for purposes of applying Montgomery Ward, we conclude that the BIA's holding in Briones does not apply retroactively to bar Garcia-Lara's application for adjustment under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i). Accordingly, we remand to the agency to adjudicate Garcia-Lara's application for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Gareia-Lara's remaining contentions, and we deny the government's motion to remand as moot.
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.