
    Lizandro Jose CASTRESANA-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-75033.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 8, 2009.
    Vikram K. Badrinath, Vikram Badrinath, PC, Tucson, AZ, for Petitioner.
    Richard Zanfardino, Washington, DC, District Counsel, Office of the District Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ABARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lizandro Jose Castresana-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for cancellation of removal and relief under former § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition for review.

In concluding that Castresana-Rodriguez was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(2), the agency did not have the benefit of our decision in Sinotes-Cruz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1190, 1201-03 (9th Cir.2006), in which we held that “part B of the stop-time rule of [8 U.S.C.] § 1229b(d)(l) does not apply retroactively to the seven-year continuous residence requirement of § 1229b(a)(2) for an alien who pled guilty before the enactment of [the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) ] and was eligible for discretionary relief at the time IIRIRA became effective.” Cf. Valencia-Alvarez v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 1319 (9th Cir.2006). We therefore remand for the agency to reconsider Castresana-Rodriguez’s eligibility for cancellation of removal.

In light of our disposition, we need not address Castresana-Rodriguez’s remaining contentions.

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

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