Marcos Ordaz-Gonzalez v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

MEMORANDUM

An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied Marcos Ordaz-Gonzalez’s (“Ordaz”) application for cancellation of removal and ordered him removed. Ordaz appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which dismissed his appeal and denied his subsequent motion to reconsider. Ordaz now petitions for review of those BIA orders, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a). Because Ordaz and the government both agree that the BIA should reconsider his arguments in light of intervening case law, we remand to the BIA without addressing the merits.

The IJ found Ordaz ineligible for cancellation because he had not accrued ten years of continuous physical presence in the United States, as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A), and the BIA adopted the IJ’s decision. The IJ found that Ordaz began accruing physical presence time in 1990, but stopped accruing time pursuant to the so-called “stop-time rule” when he was served a notice to appear (“NTA”) in 1998. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(l). The stop-time rule provides that continuous presence is “deemed to end ... when the alien is served a notice to appear under [8 U.S.C. § ] 1229(a).” Id. Ordaz claims that service of the 1998…