Case Name: Julio Robert PEREZ; Ana Maria Zamora, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-10
Citations: 355 F. App'x 997
Docket Number: No. 05-74384
Parties: Julio Robert PEREZ; Ana Maria Zamora, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 355
Pages: 997–998

Head Matter:
Julio Robert PEREZ; Ana Maria Zamora, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-74384.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 8, 2009.
Filed Dec. 10, 2009.
Charles E. Nichol, Esq., Law Office of Charles E. Nichol, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Margot L. Nadel, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Robert F. Adams, U.S. Dept of Justice Criminal Division, Fraud Section, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Julio Robert Perez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, and his wife, Ana Maria Zamora, a native and citizen of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order denying their motion to reopen. We grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.
The BIA failed to consider petitioners' contention that because they failed to post the voluntary bond required by 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b)(3), they are not subject to the penalties of § 1229c(d)(1). See Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005) ("[T]he BIA [is] not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner."). Moreover, although the BIA earlier affirmed and adopted an immigration judge's decision detailing multiple reasons for denying petitioners' application for relief from removal, the BIA cited only 8 U.S.C. § 1229e(b)(3) in denying petitioners' motion to reopen. See Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 658 n. 16 (9th Cir.2000) ("[T]his court cannot affirm the BIA on a ground upon which it did not rely.").
We therefore remand to the BIA to reconsider petitioners' motion to reopen, noting the BIA's intervening case law. See In re Diaz-Ruacho, 24 I. & N. Dec. 47, 47 (B.I.A.2006) ("[A]n alien who fails to meet the voluntary departure bond requirement is not subject to the penalties of [8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)(1) ]."); see generally INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam)
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.