Case Name: Rene Dimas SALAZAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-03-01
Citations: 510 F. App'x 632
Docket Number: No. 10-73265
Parties: Rene Dimas SALAZAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 510
Pages: 632–633

Head Matter:
Rene Dimas SALAZAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-73265.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 29, 2012.
Filed March 1, 2013.
Amy Kratz, Law Office of Amy Kratz, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Alison Drucker, Esquire, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
ORDER
Salazar's petition for panel rehearing is granted.
The memorandum disposition filed on October 29, 2012, is withdrawn. A replacement memorandum disposition is being filed concurrently with this order. Salazar's petition for rehearing en banc is denied as moot.
Any petition for rehearing of the replacement memorandum disposition must be filed within 45 days of the filing date of this order.
MEMORANDUM
Rene Dimas Salazar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in ab-sentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008). Upon review of all of the circumstances in this case, we conclude that Salazar did not fail to appear for his August 2009 hearing. See id. at 774. We therefore grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.
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.