Baldemar Gonzalez- Venustiano v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BALDEMAR GONZALEZ-
VENUSTIANO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73975
Agency No. A095-805-744
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Baldemar Gonzalez-Venustiano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision pretermitting his application for cancellation
* 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).
FILED
NOV 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 12-73975
of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for
review and remand.
The BIA did not have the benefit of Lozano-Arredondo v. Sessions, 866 F.3d
1082 (9th Cir. 2017), which set aside the BIA’s interpretation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(b)(1)(C) in Matter of Cortez Canales, 25 I. & N. Dec. 301 (BIA 2010),
when it pretermitted cancellation of removal. Thus, we remand the petition for
review for further proceedings consistent with that disposition.
We do not reach the government’s contentions regarding Gonzalez-
Venustiano’s alleged ineligibility for cancellation of removal under Gonzalez-
Gonzalez v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 649 (9th Cir. 2004). See Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d
646, 658 n.16 (9th Cir. 2000).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --