Case ID: f-appx_416/html/0663-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ricardo MURRIETA-ESPINO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-74449.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed Feb. 28, 2011.
    Carl Shusterman, Esq., The Law Offices of Carl Shusterman, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, 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, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, 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

Ricardo Murrieta-Espino, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order sustaining the government’s appeal from an immigration judge’s decision. 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 Murrieta-Espino was removable under the aggravated felony ground of deportation, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), based on his 1986 conviction for violating California Penal Code § 288(a). 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 do not reach Murrieta-Espino’s remaining contentions.

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