ARMANDO GRIJALVA CUEN, AKA Armando Cuen Grijalva v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARMANDO GRIJALVA CUEN, AKA
Armando Cuen Grijalva,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-70970
Agency No. A013-676-269
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Armando Grijalva Cuen, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for cancellation of
removal for certain lawful permanent residents and voluntary departure as a matter
FILED
JUL 27 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

of discretion. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
questions of law and constitutional claims. Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 977,
982 (9th Cir. 2014). We grant the petition for review and remand.
Before the BIA, Grijalva Cuen contended that, in determining that Grijalva
Cuen did not warrant a favorable exercise of discretion, the IJ erred in considering
alleged arrests and convictions for which there was no evidence in the record. The
BIA did not address this contention nor clarify whether it considered such
incidents in affirming the IJ’s decision. We therefore remand for the BIA to clarify
whether it considered as a negative factor in its discretionary analysis alleged
arrests and convictions for which there was no evidence in the record and, if so,
address Grijalva Cuen’s contention that doing so was error. See She v. Holder, 629
F.3d 958, 963-64 (9th Cir. 2010) (remanding where “we lack the clairvoyance
necessary to confidently infer the reasoning behind the BIA’s conclusion”);
Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824, 849 (9th Cir. 2003) (reviewing whether the
BIA considered an impermissible factor in making a discretionary determination).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
13-70970 2

-- 2 of 2 --