NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 21 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JORGE LUIS HERNANDEZ-CABELLO, No. 17-70041 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-263-228 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 19, 2019** Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Jorge Luis Hernandez-Cabello, 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 cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). The agency denied cancellation of removal for failure to demonstrate ten years of continuous physical presence prior to service of Hernandez-Cabello’s Notice to Appear (“NTA”). However, the agency did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), which held that an NTA that does not specify a place and time for a non-citizen’s first hearing does not trigger the stop-time rule to calculate continuous physical presence. As Hernandez-Cabello’s NTA did not specify the date and time of his hearing, we remand to the BIA to consider his eligibility for cancellation of removal in light of that decision. In light of our disposition, we do not reach Hernandez-Cabello’s contentions regarding the agency’s adverse credibility determination. PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 2 17-70041 17-70041 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Jorge Hernandez-Cabello v. William Barr 21 February 2019 Agency Unpublished 7ee05f21e90564253df951b017c0cebc4028cac2
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals