Julio Robert Perez; Ana Maria Zamora 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 finds this case 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JULIO ROBERT PEREZ; ANA MARIA
ZAMORA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-74384
Agency Nos. A074-817-490
A079-534-787
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 8, 2009**
San Francisco, California
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Julio Robert Perez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, and his wife, Ana
Maria Zamora, a native and citizen of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of
FILED
DEC 10 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
Immigration Appeals’ order denying their motion to reopen. We grant the petition
for review and remand for further proceedings.
The BIA failed to consider petitioners’ contention that because they failed to
post the voluntary bond required by 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b)(3), they are not subject to
the penalties of § 1229c(d)(1). See Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040
(9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he BIA [is] not free to ignore arguments raised by a
petitioner.”). Moreover, although the BIA earlier affirmed and adopted an
immigration judge’s decision detailing multiple reasons for denying petitioners’
application for relief from removal, the BIA cited only 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b)(3) in
denying petitioners’ motion to reopen. See Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 658 n.16
(9th Cir. 2000) (“[T]his court cannot affirm the BIA on a ground upon which it did
not rely.”).
We therefore remand to the BIA to reconsider petitioners’ motion to reopen,
noting the BIA’s intervening case law. See In re Diaz-Ruacho, 24 I. & N. Dec. 47,
47 (B.I.A. 2006) (“[A]n alien who fails to meet the voluntary departure bond
requirement is not subject to the penalties of [8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)(1)].”); see
generally INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --