Case ID: f-appx_306/html/0354-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose ABARCA-SOSA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-71800.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.
    
    Filed Dec. 26, 2008.
    
      Jan Joseph Bejar, Esq., San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, USSD-Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., Susan Houser, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, TROTT, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Abarca-Sosa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo whether an offense qualifies as an aggravated felony, Ruiz-Morales v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1219, 1221 (9th Cir.2004), and we grant the petition for review.

An intervening change in the law requires us to remand the petition because Abarea-Sosa’s conviction for violating CaLPenal Code § 261.5(c) is not categorically for “sexual abuse of a minor” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A), Estrada-Espinoza v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1147, 1159 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc), and the modified categorical approach cannot be used to conform his conviction to the generic offense, id. at 1160. We therefore remand for the agency to consider Abarea-Sosa’s application for lawful permanent resident cancellation of removal.

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.