Case Name: Okechuku Agwara UCHE, aka Okechuki Agwara Uche, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-06
Citations: 236 F. App'x 307
Docket Number: No. 04-76366
Parties: Okechuku Agwara UCHE, aka Okechuki Agwara Uche, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 236
Pages: 307–308

Head Matter:
Okechuku Agwara UCHE, aka Okechuki Agwara Uche, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-76366.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 16, 2007.
Filed June 6, 2007.
Valerie Curtis-Diop, Esq., Law Offices of Valerie Curtis, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kristin A. Cabral, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Okechuku Agwara Uche, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order adopting and affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") order of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we grant the petition for review.
An intervening change in the law requires us to remand proceedings. The IJ concluded that he lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate Uche's adjustment of status application because Uche is a paroled alien. In Bona v. Gonzales, we concluded that paroled aliens are eligible for adjustment of status. See Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 670-71 (9th Cir.2005). Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and remand for reconsideration in light of Bona.
Petitioner's request to expedite is denied 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.