IVAN DIAZ-MELLADO V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 16-72544 (9th Cir. 2019)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 22 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IVAN DIAZ-MELLADO, AKA Ivan Diaz, AKA Ivan Mellado, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-72544 Agency No. A087-682-672 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 19, 2019** Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Ivan Diaz-Mellado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for * 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). review. The BIA denied cancellation of removal for failure to demonstrate 10 years of continuous physical presence prior to service of Diaz-Mellado’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 fails to designate the time and place of an alien’s removal proceedings does not trigger the stop-time rule ending the alien’s accrual of continuous presence. Diaz-Mellado’s NTA did not specify the time and place of his hearing. We thus grant the petition for review, and remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with Pereira. In light of our disposition, we do not reach Diaz-Mellado’s contentions regarding administrative voluntary departure and equitable estoppel. PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 2 16-72544

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.