Case ID: f-appx_424/html/0689-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BYBEE, Circuit Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Martin LIMON-ROBLES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-71175.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2011.
    
    Filed March 28, 2011.
    John Martin Pope, Pope & Associates, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Erica Miles, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Martin Limon-Robles, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

The agency determined that Limon-Robles was removable under the aggravated felony ground of deportation, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a) (2) (A) (iii), based on his 1987 conviction for violating Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 13-1405, 1401, 3821, 1001, 604.01, 702, 801 and 812. Subsequent to the agency’s decision in this case, we held in Ledezma-Galicia v. Holder, 636 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir.2010), that 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) does not apply to convictions that occurred prior to November 18,1988. We therefore grant the petition for review and remand to the agency in light of Ledezma-Galicia.

In light of our disposition, we need not address Limon-Robles’ remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

BYBEE, Circuit Judge,

concurring in the judgement:

I reluctantly concur in the judgment. I continue to believe that Ledezma-Galicia was wrongly decided. See Ledezma-Galicia v. Holder, 636 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir.2010) (Bybee, J., dissenting). 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.