
    Juan Dedios CONTRERAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71309.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed Feb. 28, 2011.
    Teresa Salazar, Law Offices of Martin Resendez Guajardo, a Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John P. Devaney, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Dedios Contreras, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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 review de novo questions of law. Castillo-Cruz v. Holder, 581 F.3d 1154, 1158-59 (9th Cir. 2009). We grant in part and deny in part the petition for review.

Subsequent to the agency’s decision in this case, we held that indecent exposure as defined by California Penal Code § 314(1) is not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude. Nunez v. Holder, 594 F.3d 1124, 1138 (9th Cir.2010). The agency therefore erred in determining on the record before it that Contreras was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(C). We grant the petition in part and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

We deny the petition for review with respect to the agency’s denial of Contreras’s request for voluntary departure because we lack jurisdiction to review this discretionary determination. 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f); Galeana-Mendoza v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 1054, 1056 n. 5 (9th Cir. 2006).

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

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