Case Name: Elfego Lopez GARZON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-24
Citations: 371 F. App'x 839
Docket Number: No. 07-74350
Parties: Elfego Lopez GARZON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 371
Pages: 839–840

Head Matter:
Elfego Lopez GARZON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74350.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 16, 2010.
Filed March 24, 2010.
Jorge I. Rodriguez Choi, Esquire, Law Office of Jorge I. Rodriguez Choi, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Kristin Edison, Carol Federighi, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Stuart S. Nickum, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of The District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, 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
Elfego Lopez Garzón, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Franco-Rosendo v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 965, 966 (9th Cir.2006). We grant the petition for review and remand.
The BIA abused its discretion when it denied Lopez Garzon's motion to reopen because it failed to properly consider evidence of the future hardship resulting from his U.S. citizen son's diagnosis of ocular neuritis and his permanent loss of vision in his left eye. See id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.