
    Juan GOMEZ-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-70016.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 19, 2013.
    
    Filed Dec. 12, 2013.
    Scott Allen Marks, Law Offices of Scott A. Marks, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Liza Murcia, OIL, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Jennifer Paisner Williams, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Gomez-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam). We grant in part and deny in part the petition for review and remand.

In concluding that Gomez-Garcia was inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(II), the BIA did not have the benefit of Duran Gonzales v. DHS, 712 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir.2013) and Carrillo de Palacios v. Holder, 708 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir.2013), in which the court set out the retroactivity test to be applied in such cases. See Duran Gonzales, 712 F.3d at 1275-78. We remand to the BIA to apply the retroactivity test in the first instance. See id. at 1278 (remanding for retroactivity analysis given the fact that the record has not been fully developed).

Gomez-Garcia’s motion to hold his case in abeyance pending a decision in Duran Gonzales v. DHS, 659 F.3d 930 (9th Cir.2011) is denied as moot. The parties shall bear their own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DENIED in part; and REMANDED. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     