Gloria Maria Montoya De Soto v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GLORIA MARIA MONTOYA DE
SOTO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 13-70564
Agency No. A089-532-081
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Gloria Maria Montoya de Soto, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying adjustment of status. We have
FILED
MAR 15 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Garfias-
Rodriguez v. Holder, 702 F.3d 504, 512 n.6 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). We grant
the petition for review and remand.
At the time the BIA determined that Matter of Briones, 24 I. & N. Dec. 355
(BIA 2007), applied retroactively to render Montoya de Soto ineligible to adjust
status, the BIA did not have the benefit of this court’s decision in Acosta-Olivarria
v. Lynch, 799 F.3d 1271, 1274-77 (9th Cir. 2015). Like the petitioner in Acosta-
Olivarria, Montoya de Soto applied for adjustment of status during the 21-month
window between Acosta v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 550 (9th Cir. 2006) (permitting
adjustment of status for an alien inadmissible under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I)), and Briones, when it was reasonable for Montoya de Soto to
rely on our decision in Acosta. See Acosta-Olivarria, 799 F.3d at 1274-77. As
there is no significant factual basis to distinguish Montoya de Soto’s situation from
the one presented in Acosta-Olivarria, we remand to the agency to reconsider her
contention in light of Acosta-Olivarria.
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Montoya de Soto’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
13-70564 2

-- 2 of 2 --