
    Misael VENCES MAYA, aka Misael Maya, aka Leonel Morales Carmona, aka Misael Quintero, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-73496.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 14, 2015.
    
    Filed Oct. 22, 2015.
    Misael Vences Maya, San Diego, CA, pro se.
    Joseph D. Hardy, Jr., Esquire, Trial, Oil, 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: SILVERMAN, BYBEE and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Misael Vences Maya, 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 finding him removable and denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand.

When the BIA concluded that Vences Maya is removable due to a controlled substance conviction, it did not have the benefit of this court’s opinion in Medina-Lara v. Holder, 771 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir.2014) (examining record of conviction). We remand for the BIA to reconsider Vences Maya’s removability in light of this intervening opinion.

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Vences Maya’s remaining contentions.

We do not consider the extra-record materials that Vences Maya submitted with his briefs. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (the court’s review is limited to the administrative record); Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc) (new evidence may be added to the record through a motion to reopen with the agency).

We grant Vences Maya’s motion for leave to file a supplemental brief.

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.
     