
    Rosendo Garcia AMBRIZ; Dora Leticia Garcia; Silvia Garcia Guzman, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-75789.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 25, 2011.
    Enrique Arevalo, Esquire, Law Offices of Enrique Arevalo, South Pasadena, CA, for Petitioners.
    Aric Allan Anderson, Trial, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioners Rosendo Garcia Ambriz, Dora Leticia Garcia, and Silvia Garcia Guzman, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir.2008), and we grant the petition for review.

The agency declined to entertain Garcia Ambriz’s request to consider additional evidence in support of his cancellation of removal application without the benefit of our decision in Fernandes v. Holder, 619 F.3d 1069, 1074 (9th Cir.2010) (“[T]he IJ’s jurisdiction on remand from the BIA is limited only when the BIA expressly retains jurisdiction and qualifies or limits the scope of the remand to a specific purpose.”). See also Matter of M-D-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 138, 141-42 (BIA 2007) (IJ has authority to consider additional evidence on remand “if it is material, was not previously available, and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing.”). We therefore remand for proceedings consistent with this disposition.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     