Case Name: Jose Garduno DOMINGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-12
Citations: 158 F. App'x 56
Docket Number: No. 04-71851
Parties: Jose Garduno DOMINGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, W. FLETCHER and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 158
Pages: 56–57

Head Matter:
Jose Garduno DOMINGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-71851.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 5, 2005.
Decided Dec. 12, 2005.
Jose Garduño Dominguez, La Puente, CA, pro se.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Virginia Lum, Anthony W. Norwood, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, W. FLETCHER and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Garduño Dominguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") summary affirmance without opinion of an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We vacate the BIA's decision and remand. |
The IJ denied petitioner's application on two independent grounds: failure to establish continuous physical presence and failure to demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his United States citizen children.
We have jurisdiction to review whether petitioner met the continuous physical presence requirement. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003). We lack jurisdiction, however, to review whether he satisfied the hardship requirement. Id. at 891.
Because the BIA affirmed without opinion, we have no way of knowing on which ground or grounds the BIA affirmed, and in turn whether we have jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision. See Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 932 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, we vacate the BIA's decision and remand with instructions to clarify its grounds for affirming the IJ's denial of petitioner's application for cancellation of removal. Id.
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.