N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R AUL B OR GES B ORB A -C ARDOSO, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-72154 Age n c y No. A030-861-138
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

9, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER , PAEZ, a nd B ER ZON, C irc uit Judge s. R a ul B orge s B orba -C ardoso pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m i gra tion Appe a l s (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from

an Im m igration Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) orde r finding him re m ova ble for having be e n c onvic te d of a n 

# FIL E D JUL 28 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.a ggrav a t e d fe lony unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a )(43)(S). W e gran t the pe t ition a nd
re m and. 1 1. B orba -C ardoso a

rgue s tha t the gove rnm e nt e rre d in fa iling to substitute in writing a ne w fa c t ua l a lle ga tion a fte r inc orre c tly a lle g ing in theNotic e to Appe ar a prior c onvic tion unde r C a lifornia Pe n a l C ode se c tion “ 1 18P.” Eve n a ssum ing the gove rnm e nt e rre d, B orba -C a rdoso’ s a rgum e nt la c ks m e rit be c a

use he fa ils to show pre j udic e arising from

the e rror. Afte r the B IA re m a n de d the c a se to the IJ, the
a ge nc y c onside re d whe the r B orba -C ardoso wa s re m ova b le on the ba sis of a

n a lle ga tion tha

t he ha d be e n c onvic te d unde r C a lifornia Pe na l C ode se c tion 118(a). As the re c ord re fle c ts, B o rba -C ardoso ha d notic e of tha t a lle gation a fte r the
re m and, a nd the issue wa s ra ise d a

nd a ddre sse d at the he aring be fore the IJ. Thus, no pre judic e arose from the a ge nc y ’ s fa i lure to lodge in writing a substitute

fa c tua l
a lle ga tion. W e the re fore re je c t B orba -C ardoso’ s notic e argum e nt. 2. The gove rnm e nt prove d by c le ar, une quivoc a l, a

nd c onvinc ing e vide nc e that B orba -C a

rdoso ha s a

prior c onvic tion for pe rjury unde r C a lifornia Pe na l C ode
se c t ion 118(a ). S

e e N otash v . Gonzale

s , 427 F.3d 693, 697 (9th C ir. 2005). First,
we se e no pla

usible e xpla

na t ion for the “ P” in the a bstra c t of judgm e nt tha

t would

1 “ [W ] e have jurisdic tion to de te rm ine our jurisdic tion a nd to de te rm ine a s a que stion of la

w whe the r the unde rly ing pre d ic a te offe nse [] re nde r[s] [a pe titione r] re m ova ble .” Me dina-Lara v . Holde r , 771 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th C ir. 2014). 2give rise to a ny re a l a m biguity a s to whe the r he ha d be e n c onvic te d unde r se c tion 118(a ). Se c ond, the am e nde d a bstra c t of judgm e nt lists a M a y 26, 2004,
c onvic tion for C ount 1, “ PC 118P PER JUR Y,” without spe c ify i ng a sta tutory subpa rt. The guilty

ple a form date d M ay

26, 2004, indic a te s tha

t B orba -C ardoso
wa s c ha rge d, by c o m pla int, with pe rjury . Tha

t form shows a ple a unde r “ C ount(s)” 1, “ C ode Se c tion” 118, a

nd “ Pe rjury ” a s the “Nam e of Offe n se .” C ount 1 of the
c om pla i nt in there c ord tra c ks without mate ria l va ria t ion the te xt of se c tion 118(a). Se e Unite d State

s v . C abre ra-Pe re

z , 751 F.3d 1000,1005–06 (9th C ir. 2014). Thus, the gove rnm e nt m e t its burde n of proving B orba -C ardoso’ s prior c onvic tion unde r se c tion 118(a). 3. The B IA c onc lude d tha t the prior c onvic tion qua lifie d c a te g oric a lly a s a n a ggrav a t e d fe lony

unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a )(43)(S) by a pply ing In reMartine

zRe c inos , 23 I. & N. De c . 175 (B IA 2001). As in Yim v
. Ly nc h , No. 12-73079 (9th C ir. file d July

28, 2015), we re m and to the B IA to re c onside r whe the r se c tion 118(a ) is a

n a ggrav a te d fe lony , a

pply ing “ the m ode of a

n a ly sis de rive d from Tay lor [ v . Unite d State

s , 495 U.S. 575 (1990),] and its proge ny , whic h we use to de te rm i ne ge ne ric c rim e s for the purpose s of c a te goric a l a na ly sis of prior
c onvic tions,” Unite d State s v . Garc ia-Santana , 774 F.3d 528, 543 (9th C ir. 2014) (footnote om i tte d). In re m anding to the B IA, we c onc lude tha

t B orba -C a

rdoso 3a de quate ly

ra ise d this issue in his a ppe a l to the B IA and in his brie f be fore this
c ourt. G RANT E D and RE M ANDE D in par t.

4