Case Name: Leocadia MAGANA-MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-24
Citations: 366 F. App'x 813
Docket Number: No. 07-71129
Parties: Leocadia MAGANA-MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 366
Pages: 813–814

Head Matter:
Leocadia MAGANA-MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71129.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed Feb. 24, 2010.
Leocadia Magana-Mendoza, Shafter, CA, pro se.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Seeuri ty, San Francisco, CA, Jeffery R. Leist, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Scott Rempell, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, 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
Leocadia Magana-Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Sandoval-Lua v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir.2007). We grant the petition for review and remand.
Magana-Mendoza is not ineligible for cancellation of removal for having been convicted of an aggravated felony because the record of conviction is inconclusive as to the controlled substance involved. See id. at 1130. Because neither the government nor the agency had the benefit of our intervening decision in Sandoval-Lua, we remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with that decision.
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.