Daniel Ramirez Rosete; Margarita Cortez De Ramirez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DANIEL RAMIREZ ROSETE;
MARGARITA CORTEZ DE RAMIREZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73393
Agency Nos. A097-351-655
A097-351-658
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
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
FILED
OCT 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-73393 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.

-- 2 of 2 --