Obregon-Rocha
Obregon-Rocha v. Gonzales
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Reymo Obregon-Rocha, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming without opinion an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. We grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.
The government contends that Obregon-Rocha failed to exhaust his argument that the “purpose or benefit” component of 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (a)(3)(D)® was not satisfied in his case. We disagree. In Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2004), we applied the principle that government briefs may exhaust issues for petitioners. The DHS brief to the BIA in this case stated considerably more than that filed in Zara. See id. at 930-31 . Even though the brief mentioned only the removability ground’s “false claim” aspect, it specifically referred to the page of the IJ’s decision discussing the provision’s “purpose or benefit” component. The BIA was therefore adequately put on notice of the issue, and this court has jurisdiction to review it. See generally Abebe v. Gon *711 zales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1041 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (restating policy concerns underlying exhaustion).