
    Artisia Yesenia ALCAZAR-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74469.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 6, 2012.
    
    Filed March 15, 2012.
    Guadalupe Olvera Martinez, Esquire, Law Office of Alma Rosa Nieto Professional Law Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regan Hildebrand, United States Department of Justice, OIL, Edward Earl Wiggers, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Artisia Yesenia Alcazar-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to remand to present new evidence in support of her application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand, Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.2008), and we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

The BIA abused its discretion in denying Alcazar-Gonzalez’s motion to remand where the new evidence she presented with her motion was sufficient under In re Recinas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 467 (BIA 2002), to establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600 n. 6 (9th Cir. 2006) (to establish a prima facie case, petitioner must show a reasonable likelihood of satisfying the statutory requirements for relief).

We therefore grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA with instructions to remand to the immigration judge for a new hearing on Alcazar-Gonzalez’s cancellation application.

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.
     