Opinion
No. 06-73334.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed July 21, 2009.
Michael S. Cabrera, Esq., Huntington Park, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Lindsay L. Chichester, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, CAS-District, San Diego, CA, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A029-217-548.
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Ernesto Patino Carcamo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings that were conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Sharma v. INS, 89 F.3d 545, 547 (9th Cir. 1996). We grant the petition for review.
The IJ abused his discretion in denying Patino Carcamo's motion to reopen in light of Patino Carcamo's undisputed statement that he arrived at court 15 minutes late. See Jerezano v. INS, 169 F.3d 613, 615 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that denying a petitioner's motion to reopen when he arrived 15 to 20 minutes late was an abuse of discretion).