Case Name: Edgar GARCIA-MONTOYA, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-13
Citations: 126 F. App'x 413
Docket Number: No. 03-74347, A77-301-065
Parties: Edgar GARCIA-MONTOYA, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 126
Pages: 413–413

Head Matter:
Edgar GARCIA-MONTOYA, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-74347, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 23, 2005.
Decided April 13, 2005.
Gabriela Kreutzer, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Mark C. Walters, Stephen J. Flynn, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Edgar Garcia-Montoya, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") summary affirmance of an immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We vacate and remand.
The IJ denied Garcia-Montoya relief for failure to demonstrate the existence of a qualifying relative, continuous physical presence, good moral character and exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. Because the BIA's "affirmance without opinion endorses only the result of the I J's decision and not its reasoning, we do not know whether the BIA's decision was based on the reviewable or unreviewable ground, or both." Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 927 (9th Cir.2004). Therefore, "intelligent exercise of our appellate jurisdiction" requires that we vacate and remand. Id. at 932.
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 may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.