Benilda Say; Jose Ong v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BENILDA SAY; JOSE ONG,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 05-71872
05-71873
Agency Nos. A079-789-913
A079-789-922
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 27, 2011**
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Benilda Say and Jose Ong, natives
and citizens of the Philippines, petition for review for the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders summarily affirming an immigration judge’s decision
FILED
OCT 06 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

05-71872 2
denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petitions for review and remand.
The government requests that we grant Ong’s petition for review and
remand to allow the BIA to address in the first instance petitioners’ contention that
Ong’s conviction falls within the petty offense exemption at 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(2)(ii). The government also requests that we grant Say’s petition for
review and remand to allow the BIA to clarify whether Say’s application was
denied on statutory or discretionary grounds. We agree that remand of both
petitions on these grounds is appropriate. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18,
(2002) (per curiam) (remand appropriate where issues were not considered by the
BIA); Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 931-32 (9th Cir. 2004) (remand appropriate
when it is unclear whether agency relied on a reviewable ground).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --