
    Rodolfo CALDERA-SAUCEDO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-72140.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Nov. 24, 2008.
    
    Filed Dec. 2, 2008.
    Sung Uk Park, Esquire, Law Offices of Sung U. Park, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Stacy S. Paddack, Esquire, Hillel Smith, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rodolfo Caldera-Saucedo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider its prior order dismissing his late-filed appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Oh v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 611, 612 (9th Cir.2005), we grant the petition for review and remand.

Caldera-Saucedo’s motion to reconsider attached several exhibits supporting his argument that his late-filed appeal be considered timely due to an escalating medical problem. See BIA Practice Manual, Ch. 3.1(c)(ii) (permitting submission of evidence with motions to re-file untimely appeals or motions). As the BIA’s April 13, 2006 decision does not indicate that it considered Caldera-Saucedo’s argument or evidence, we remand to allow the BIA to exercise its discretion regarding CalderaSaucedo’s request. See Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.2005) (BIA must provide specific and cogent reasons for its decision in order to provide court a reasoned decision to review).

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.
     