Case Name: Owen Augustus FAGAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-05-13
Citations: 575 F. App'x 815
Docket Number: No. 12-73959
Parties: Owen Augustus FAGAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 575
Pages: 815–816

Head Matter:
Owen Augustus FAGAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-73959.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2014.
Filed May 28, 2014.
Stephen Shaiken, Law Office of Stephen Shaiken, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Margot Carter, Trial, Allison Frayer, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, 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
Owen Augustus Fagan, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirming a decision of an immigration judge ("U") denying his application for cancellation of removal and his request for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing de novo questions of law, Doissaint v. Mu-kasey, 538 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir.2008), we grant the petition for review and remand the matter to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with our disposition.
The agency erred by failing to consider Fagan's properly raised and briefed request for a waiver of inadmissibility pursuant to former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1996). See id. ("Us and the BIA are not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner." (citation omitted)). Accordingly, we remand the matter to the agency for it to address this issue in the first instance. See Casares-Castellon v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1111, 1113 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam) (remanding a case to the agency for a merits determination in the first instance).
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.