Case Name: Jorge Garcia CABRALES, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-28
Citations: 265 F. App'x 612
Docket Number: No. 06-70572
Parties: Jorge Garcia CABRALES, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 265
Pages: 612–613

Head Matter:
Jorge Garcia CABRALES, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-70572.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 14, 2008 .
Filed Jan. 28, 2008.
Jorge Garcia-Cabrales, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wernery, Esq., Leslie McKay, Esq., DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offlce of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, 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
Jorge Garcia Cabrales, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirming without opinion an immigration judge's decision that he is ineligible for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and grant the petition for review.
After the agency's decisions in this case, the BIA held in Matter of Gonzalez-Silva, 24 I. & N. Dec. 218 (BIA 2007), that "an alien whose conviction precedes the effective date for section 237(a)(2)(E) of the [Immigration and Nationality] Act has not been 'convicted under' section 237(a)(2)" and remains eligible for cancellation of removal. Id. at 220. As Garcia Cabrales's conviction occurred in 1990, we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.
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.