Case Name: Mario Orlando GOCHES-MONTANO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-01
Citations: 469 F. App'x 654
Docket Number: No. 08-73136
Parties: Mario Orlando GOCHES-MONTANO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 469
Pages: 654–654

Head Matter:
Mario Orlando GOCHES-MONTANO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-73136.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
Filed March 1, 2012.
William Amos Lawrence, Esquire, Independent Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Edward John Duffy, Trial, OIL, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Lance Lomond Jolley, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, 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
Mario Orlando Goches-Montano, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reconsider its underlying decision dismissing as untimely his appeal from an immigration judge's ("U") removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We review for abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We grant the petition for review.
The BIA dismissed Goches-Montano's appeal as untimely without the benefit of our decision in Irigoyen-Briones v. Holder, 644 F.3d 943, 948 (9th Cir.2011), which held that the 30-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal with the BIA is not jurisdictional. We therefore remand for the BIA to reconsider whether, under the circumstances presented, it will hear the appeal from the IJ's decision in this case. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002).
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.