
    Ana Evelia Rodriguez BENITEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-77028.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 13, 2007.
    
    Filed Nov. 21, 2007.
    Ana Evelia Rodriguez Benitez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District 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, Oil, John R. Cunningham, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER, 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

Ana Evelia Rodriguez Benitez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. See Oh v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 611, 612 (9th Cir.2005). We grant the petition for review and remand.

An intervening change in the law requires us to remand on the issue of continuous physical presence. In Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 619 (9th Cir.2006), we held that administrative voluntary departure under threat of deportation breaks the accrual of continuous physical presence only where the alien is informed of the terms of the departure and knowingly and voluntarily accepts the terms of departure. See also Tapia v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 997, 1004 (9th Cir.2005). In the record, there is no indication that Rodriguez Benitez was informed of the terms of her departures or that she voluntarily or knowingly accepted them, and the agency did not have the benefit of our decisions in Ibarra-Flores and Tapia.

Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings consistent with Ibarra-Flores and Tapia.

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.
     