Cardenas v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Cardenas v. Gonzales

128 F. App'x 18

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 11, 2005

DocketNo. 02-71169

StatusPublished

This text of 128 F. App'x 18 (Cardenas v. Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cardenas v. Gonzales, 128 F. App'x 18 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

***

Marcos Cardenas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the [19]*19Board 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 relief for failure to demonstrate the requisite hardship and period of continuous physical presence, and the BIA summarily affirmed. Because the BIA’s “affirmance without opinion endorses only the result of the IJ’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 [19]*19courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

***

Marcos Cardenas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the [19]*19Board 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 relief for failure to demonstrate the requisite hardship and period of continuous physical presence, and the BIA summarily affirmed. Because the BIA’s “affirmance without opinion endorses only the result of the IJ’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 [19]*19courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 F. App'x 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cardenas-v-gonzales-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack