
    Eber BALAN-BARRERA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-73108
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 16, 2016 
    
    Filed November 22, 2016
    Xavier Gonzales, Xavier Gonzales, Attorney at Law, PC, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner.
    Kathryn McKinney, 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: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Eber Balan-Barrera, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1262. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 650 (9th Cir. 2014). We grant the petition for review and remand.

Balan-Barrera moved to reopen so that he could pursue an I-601A provisional waiver of inadmissibility pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(e). At that time, an individual who had been in removal proceedings was eligible for the waiver only if the agency had administratively closed proceedings, instead of entering a removal order. See 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(e)(4) (2013).

The BIA correctly noted that Balan-Barrera’s final order of removal rendered him ineligible for the waiver. However, the BIA abused its discretion in denying Ba-lan-Barrera’s motion to reopen because it appears not to have considered whether he was entitled to reopening as a matter of discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a); Singh, 771 F.3d at 653 (the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen on jurisdictional grounds was legal error, and thus an abuse of discretion, because it had authority to reopen under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a)). We therefore grant the petition and. remand for further proceedings.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     