Case ID: f-appx_321/html/0617-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joel MERCADO-TORREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-70935.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 18, 2009.
    
    Filed April 3, 2009.
    Jan Joseph Bejar, Esq., San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Lagu-na Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jennifer Lightbody, Jacqueline Dryden, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Joel Mercado-Torrez, 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 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir.2005), and we grant the petition for review.

Mercado-Torrez’s convictions do not categorically support his removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) for sexual abuse of a minor. See Estrada-Espinoza v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1147, 1159 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); United States v. Pallares-Galan, 359 F.3d 1088, 1102-03 (9th Cir.2004). Moreover, the modified categorical approach cannot be used to conform his convictions to the generic definition of “sexual abuse of a minor.” See Estrada-Espinoza, 546 F.3d at 1160.

Respondent’s motion to remand or hold the case in abeyance is denied.

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