
    Aracely De La Luz POLANCO-CHINCHILLA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-75270.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 15, 2006.
    
    Decided May 22, 2006.
    Garish Sarin, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-Distriet Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District, Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Lisa M. Arnold, Michael P. Lindermann, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Aracely de la Luz Polanco-Chinchilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her motion to reconsider the IJ’s order denying her motion to reopen to apply for suspension of deportation under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997 (“NACARA”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005), and we grant the petition for review and remand.

At the time the IJ concluded that petitioner’s motion to reopen was untimely she did not have the benefit of this court’s decision in Albillo-De Leon v. Gonzales, 410 F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th Cir.2005), which holds that the September 11, 1998, deadline for filing for NACARA relief is subject to equitable tolling. We therefore remand, consistent with INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-17, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam), so that the agency can determine whether or not equitable tolling is appropriate in this case. Because we remand on this threshold issue we do not consider petitioner’s contention that she is not barred, under Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 783-84 (9th Cir.2003), from eligibility for NACARA benefits.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     