Case ID: f-appx_585/html/0387-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cesar MUNOZ-RUVALCABA, aka Cesar Munoz-Rubalcava, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-70422.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 6, 2014.
    
    Filed Oct. 8, 2014.
    Frederick David Harlow, Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC, Brattleboro, VT, Tibor Nagy, Jr., Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, PC, Tucson, AZ, for Petitioner.
    Dawn S. Conrad, Trial, 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: D.W. NELSON, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Cesar Munoz-Ruvalcaba, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a final order of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals held that petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal because his conviction for solicitation to take the identity of another in violation of Arizona Revised Statute § 1002(A) and § 13-2008(A) involved moral turpitude. We have jurisdiction to consider whether the conviction involves moral turpitude. Marmolejo-Campos v. Holder, 558 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc). We grant the petition for review and remand to the Board.

The Board made two errors in its ruling determining that petitioner was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. First, the Board used the wrong version of the statute, Arizona Revised Statute § 13-2008. Petitioner’s offense was committed in 2007, yet the Board used a version of the statute that was not effective until May 1, 2008.

Second, in its discussion of count 40, the count to which, as amended, the petitioner plead guilty (solicitation to commit taking the identity of another) the Board mistakenly quoted the allegations of count 41 (forgery). The government concedes that this error requires remand.

We grant the petition for review and remand for the Board to reconsider the categorical and modified categorical approaches using the correct version of the statute of conviction and the correct count of conviction.

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