Mayra Roxana Cruz-Carballo 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MAYRA ROXANA CRUZ-CARBALLO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-72199
Agency No. A074-426-129
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Mayra Roxana Cruz-Carballo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
her appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under
FILED
JAN 12 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-72199 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d
773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009), and we grant the petition for review.
The BIA failed to address Cruz-Carballo’s contention that she is eligible for
special rule cancellation of removal under 8 C.F.R. § 1240.66(c), which
implements the provision of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American
Relief Act of 1997 (“NACARA”) authorizing relief for otherwise eligible aliens
who are removable due to certain criminal convictions. See NACARA § 203(b).
Although both parties discuss Cruz-Carballo’s eligibility for this relief in their
briefing, because “this court cannot affirm the BIA on a ground upon which it did
not rely,” Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 658 n.16 (9th Cir. 2000), we grant the
petition for review and remand the case to the BIA to address Cruz-Carballo’s
eligibility in the first instance. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002) (per
curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --