MOTION TO REOPEN . REMAND . Consider Evidence . MEXICO . Non-receipt of BIA Order . BIA did not properly consider evidence that Respondent did not receive BIA order mailed. [Rosete, CA9 October 1, 2010, unpublished]

EVIDENCE . REMAND . Motion to Reopen . MEXICO . Non-receipt of BIA Order . BIA did not properly consider evidence that Respondent did not receive BIA order mailed. [Rosete, CA9 October 1, 2010, unpublished]

_____________________________________________________

 

ROSETE v. HOLDER, 08-73393 (9th Cir. 10-1-2010)

DANIEL RAMIREZ ROSETE; MARGARITA CORTEZ DE RAMIREZ, Petitioners, v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-73393.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 13, 2010.[fn**]

October 1, 2010.

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

[fn**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM[fn*]

[fn*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency Nos. A097-351-655 A097-351-658.

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Daniel Ramirez Rosete and Margarita Cortez De Ramirez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reissue. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to Page 2 reopen, Hernandez-Velasquez v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1073, 1077 (9th Cir. 2010), we grant the petition for review and remand.

The BIA abused its discretion by failing to specifically address petitioners' evidence that they did not receive notice of the BIA's September 28, 2007, order. See Singh v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1170, 1172-73 (9th Cir. 2007) (BIA is obligated to consider and address the evidence submitted by petitioner). We remand for the BIA to address petitioners' evidence of non-receipt in the first instance and determine whether it is sufficient to overcome the presumption of mailing. See id.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.