Case ID: f-appx_362/html/0833-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jesus Ramon TOLOSA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-73854.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 21, 2010.
    Edgardo Quintanilla, Quintanilla Law Firm, Inc., Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioner.
    Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    
      Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jesus Ramon Tolosa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition for review and remand.

In concluding that Ramon Tolosa is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal based on his 1994 conviction for violating section 11352 of the California Health and Safety Code, the agency did not have the benefit of our decision in Sandoval-Lua v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 1121, 1132 (9th Cir.2007), where we held that an alien seeking to establish that a criminal conviction under a divisible statute does not bar cancellation of removal under the modified categorical analysis may do so by pointing to inconclusive conviction records.

We remand for the agency to reconsider Ramon Tolosa’s eligibility for cancellation of removal. In light of our disposition, we need not address Ramon Tolosa’s remaining contentions.

The parties shall bear their own costs on this petition for 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.