Case Name: Rey PARRA-SANTOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-08
Citations: 382 F. App'x 601
Docket Number: No. 07-73537
Parties: Rey PARRA-SANTOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 382
Pages: 601–602

Head Matter:
Rey PARRA-SANTOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73537.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 8, 2010.
Peter James Musser, Peter James Mus-ser a Professional Corporation, Vista, CA, for Petitioner.
Corey Leigh Farrell, OIL, Richard Zan-fardino, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Rey Parra-Santos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen proceedings to apply for adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003), we grant the petition for review.
The BIA abused its discretion in denying Parra-Santos' motion to reopen where the record establishes that he did submit the August 6, 2005, approval notice of his immigrant visa petition filed on his behalf by his United States citizen spouse, and this constitutes sufficient evidence of the bona fides of his marriage. See 8 C.F.R. § 1245.1(e)(8)(v) (2008) (an approved immigrant visa petition "will be considered primary evidence of eligibility for the bona fide marriage exemption").
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.