Sandra Romero-Valenzuela v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 497 F. App'x 770 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 16 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANDRA ROMERO-VALENZUELA, No. 09-71525
Petitioner, Agency No. A093-142-519
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 13, 2012 **
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Sandra Romero-Valenzuela, 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 motion to reopen. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Reynoso-
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Cisneros v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1001, 1002 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam), and we
grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.
In concluding that the agency lacked jurisdiction to reopen Romero-
Valenzuela’s proceedings as a result of her prior deportation, the BIA did not have
the benefit of Reyes-Torres v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2011), in which we
held that 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(d) did not preclude the filing of a motion to reopen
after the petitioner had been removed. See Reyes-Torres, 645 F.3d at 1076-77; see
also Reynoso-Cisneros, 491 F.3d at 1002 (treating departure bars under 8 C.F.R.
§§ 1003.2(d) and 1003.23(b)(1) as substantively identical). We remand to the BIA
in light of this intervening caselaw.
In light of our disposition, we need not address Romero-Valenzuela’s
remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
2 09-71525