NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 30 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN ORDONEZ-MEJIA, No. 16-73230
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-246-237
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 27, 2018**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Juan Ordonez-Mejia, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying cancellation of removal. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review.
*
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).
The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of cancellation of removal for failure to
demonstrate 10 years continuous physical presence prior to service of Ordonez-
Mejia’s Notice to Appear (“NTA”). However, the BIA did not have the benefit of
the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), which
held that an NTA that did not specify a place and time for a non-citizen’s first
hearing did not trigger the stop-time rule to calculate continuous physical presence.
As Ordonez-Mejia’s NTA did not specify the date and time of his hearing, we
remand to the BIA to consider his eligibility for cancellation of removal in light of
that decision.
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Ordonez-Mejia’s contentions
regarding the denial of a continuance. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538
(9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to reach non-dispositive
issues).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
2 16-73230