Case ID: f-appx_346/html/0263-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ricardo E. EGUIZABAL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72461.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
    
    Filed Sept. 29, 2009.
    
      Virginia Lum, OIL, Benjamin Zeitlin, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel Phoenix, Esquire, Office of the District Director U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ricardo E. Eguizabal, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se 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. We review de novo whether a particular conviction constitutes an aggravated felony, Randhawa v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir.2002), and we grant the petition for review.

Eguizabal’s conviction does not categorically support his removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) for a crime of violence, because California Penal Code § 69 is not limited to the use or threat of force against the person or property of another. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F); 18 U.S.C. § 16; Jordison v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th Cir.2007). Moreover, because the state offense is missing this element of the generic offense, the modified categorical approach is inapplicable. See Navarro-Lopez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1063, 1073 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc).

We grant Eguizabal’s May 15, 2009 motion to supplement his opening brief.

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