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 EINALDO OTONIEL C ARR ILLOJAIM E, aka

R e ina ldo C arrillo, R e ina ldo Otonie l C arrillo, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 10-73106 Age n c y No. A042-483-280 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

June 25, 2013 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : D.W . NELSON, W . FLETC HER , a nd TALLM AN, C irc u it Judge s. Pe titione r R e ina ldo Otonie l C arrillo-Ja im e , a c itiz e n of El Sa lva dor a

nd la wful pe rm ane nt re side nt of the Unite d State s, pe titions for re vie w of a B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s (“ B IA” ) de c ision a ffirm ing a de t e rm i nation of a

n Im m i gration Judge(“ IJ” ) that he wa s re m ova b le . 

# FIL ED JUL 17 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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.W e c onside re d in 2009 whe t he r C arrillo-Ja im e wa s re m ova ble . He wa s c ha rge d with re m o va

b i lity unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1227(a )(2)(A)(i) for be ing c onvic te d of a c rim e involving m

ora l turpitudec om

m itte d within five

y e ars a fte r a dm ission and unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1227(a )(2)(A)(ii) for be ing c onvic te d of two c rim e s involving m ora l turpitudeany

tim e a fte r a dm ission. C arrillo-Ja im e ha d a n a pplic ation pe nding unde r Se c tion 212(c ) of the Im m igration a

nd Na tiona lity Ac t, 8 U.S.C . § 1182(c ) (re pe a le d 1996), for disc re tiona ry re lie f from

re m ova l. C arrillo-Ja im e wa s a lso c ha rge d with re m ova

bility for having c om

m itte d an a ggravate d fe lony

unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1227(a )(2)(A)(iii) be c a use , the gove rnm e nt a

rgue d, he ha d be e n c onvic te d of a the ft offe nse . If C arrillo-Ja im e we re prope rly c onvic te d of a

n a ggravate d fe lony , Se c tion 212(c ) re lie f would not be ava ila ble . Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1229b(a)(3) (individua l c onvic te d of a ggravate d fe lony not e ligiblefor c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l). The gove rnm e n t a

rgue d to us in 2009 tha

t C arrillo-Ja im e ha d be e n c onvic te d of a the ft offe nse unde r both a c a te goric a l a

nd m odifie d c ate goric a l a pproa c h. Se e Tay lor v . Unite d State

s , 495 U.S. 575 (1990) . The gove rnm e nt ha d subm itte d to the IJ thre e doc um e n ts to support its a rgum e nt unde r the m odifie d c ate goric a l a pproa c h : the sta

tute s de fining thee le m e nts of a c hop shop viola

t ion; thec ha

rging doc um e nt; a

nd the a bstra c t of judgm e n t. This c o urt ha d a l re a dy c le arly he ld tha t 2the c ha

rging doc um e n t

and a bstra c t of judgm e nt we re insuffic ie n t to e sta blish the fa c t ua l ba sis of a

n a lie n’ s c onvic tion. Se e Martine z-Pe re z v . Gonzale

s , 417 F.3d 1022, 1028–29 (9th C ir. 2005). Our pa ne l publishe d a

n opinion gra

nting C arrillo-Ja im e ’ s pe tition for re vie w. C

arrillo-J aimev . Holde r , 572 F.3d 747 (9th C ir. 2009). W e he l d tha t C a lifornia Ve hic le C ode § 10801 is not a the ft offe nse unde r the c at e goric a l a pproa c h . Id. a t 749. W e a lso he ld “ that the re c ord is not suffic ie nt to e sta blish that C arrillo-Ja im e ’ s § 10801 c onvic tion is a n a ggrav at e d fe lony

the ft offe nse unde r the m odifie d c a te goric a l a pproa c h.” Id. W e sta

te d: The gove rnm e n t ha s pre s e nte d no e vide nc e tha t “ any m otor ve hic le or m otor ve hic le pa

rt” ove r whic h C arrillo-Ja im e e xe rc ise d c ontrol while owning or ope ra ting a

c hop shop wa s obta i ne d without the owne r’ s c onse nt. C onse que ntly , the gove rnm e nt ha s not e sta blishe d tha

t C arrillo-Ja i m e c om m itte d a § 1101(a )(43)(G) the ft offe nse unde r the m odifie d c ate goric a l a pproa c h. Id. a t 754. W e re m a

nde d for furthe r proc e e dings. Id. at 754–55. Given our re je c tion on the

m e rits of the gove rnm e nt’ s a rgum e nts unde r the c ate goric a l a nd m odifie d c a te goric a l a

p p roa c he s, the only

que s tion le ft ope n on re m and wa s the disc re tiona

ry de c ision whe the r to gra nt Se c tion 212(c ) re lie f. Afte r re m a

nd from our c ourt, the B IA re m ande d to the IJ. B e fore the IJ, the gove rnm e nt submitte d

ne w doc um e nts, inc luding a tra nsc ript of the ple a

3proc e e dings a nd se ve ra l polic e re ports, in support of its c onte ntion tha t C arrilloJa im e ha d c om

m itte d a the ft offe nse unde r the m odifie d c at e goric a l a pproa c h. All of the doc um e nts we re date d at the tim e of C arrillo-Ja im e ’ s c rim ina l ple a and ha d pre v iously

be e n ava ila

b le to the gove rnm e nt. The IJ c onc lude d tha t C arrillo-Ja im e ha d be e n c onvic t e d of a

the ft offe nse , a

nd the B IA a ffirm e d . Our prior re m and did not perm it the gove rnm e nt a se c ond c ha

nc e to introduc e e vide nc e to support its c la im tha t C a rrillo-Ja im e ’ s c o nvic tion qua lifie d a s a the ft offe nse unde r the m odifie d c ate goric a l a pproa c h. Unde r the la

w of the m andate , “ whate ve r wa s be fore this c ourt, a nd dispose d of by

its de c re e , is c onside re d a s fina lly

se ttle d.” In reSanford Fork & Tool C

o. , 160 U.S. 247, 255 (1895). In 2009, the

gove rnm e nt a

rgue d in its brie f to us tha t C arrillo-Ja im e ha d be e n c o nvic te d of a

the ft offe nse ba se d on the m o difie d c ate g o ric a l a pproa c h, a

nd the q ue stion wa s thus “

be fore ” us a

t tha t tim e . Id. The m odifie d c ate goric a l a pproa c h wa s a lso “ dispose d of” by our m a ndate in 2009. Id. The B IA c orre c tly inte rpre te d our de c ision a s holding “that the re sponde nt’ s c o nvic tion did not c onstitute an a ggravate d

fe lony ” unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1227(a )(2)(A)(iii). C ompare C isne r os-Pe re

z v . Gonzale

s , 465 F.3d 386, 394 (9th C ir. 2006) (finding “ the re wa s not suffic ie nt doc um e ntation be fore the IJ to pe rm it the c onc lusion tha t C isne ros-Pe re z ’ s c onvic t ion wa s ne c e ssa rily for a c rim e of dom e stic viole n c e ” an d 4re m anding to c onside r disc re t iona ry re lie f), and Martine

z-Pe r e z , 417 F.3d a

t 1029 (holding tha

t no a ggravate d fe lony

ha d be e n c om

m itte d “ [b] e c a

u se the re c ord doe s not e sta blish tha t M a rtine z ’ s c onvic tion for gra nd the ft c onstitute s a

ge ne ric the ft offe nse , unde r e ithe r the c a te g oric a l or m o difie d c ate goric a l a pproa c h” ), w ith C arrillo-J aime , 572 F.3d a

t 749 (“ [T] he re c ord is not suffic ie nt to e s ta blish tha t C arrillo-Ja im e ’ s § 10801 c onvic tion is a n a ggravate d fe lony the ft offe nse unde r the m odifie d c a te goric a l a

p p roa c h.” ). W e grant C a

rrillo-Ja im e ’ s pe tition a

nd hold tha

t our prior m andate pre c lude d the a ge nc y from

re c onside ring whe the r C arrillo-Ja im e wa s c onvic t e d of a n a ggrav a t e d fe lony

unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1227(a )(2)(A)(iii). W e re m and to theB IA for the s ole purpose of de te rm ining whe the r to gra n t re lie f unde r Se c tion 212(c ). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WG RANT E D; RE M ANDE D

5