Kokila Kaneiyalal Patel 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
KOKILA KANEIYALAL PATEL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 04-71459
Agency No. A036-381-651
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 8, 2012**
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Kokila Kaneiyalal Patel, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,
FILED
AUG 13 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

04-71459 2
Camins v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 872, 876 (9th Cir. 2007), and we grant the petition
for review and remand for further proceedings.
In concluding that Patel was ineligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under
former § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the agency did not have
the benefit of Peng v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1248, 1256-57 (9th Cir. 2012), in which we
held that § 212(c) relief remains available to certain aliens who proceeded to trial
prior to the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208, or Vartelas v. Holder, 566 U.S.
––––, 132 S.Ct. 1479 (2012), in which the Supreme Court discussed the role of a
reliance inquiry when the antiretroactivity principle is invoked.
In light of this intervening caselaw, we remand to the BIA to determine
Patel’s eligibility for § 212(c) relief.
In light of our disposition, we need not address Patel’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --