N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SAM ER HADDAD, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 11-70674 Age n c y No. A035-446-592 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 Subm itte d

April 5, 2016 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : D.W . NELSON, SILVER M AN, a nd WA RDLAW , C irc uit Judge s. Sam e r Ha dda d, a

native and c itiz e n of Ge rm a ny , pe titions for re vie w of the de c ision of theB oa

rd of Im m i gration Appe a ls (B IA) dism issing his a ppe a l of the Im m i gration Judge ’ s (IJ) fina l orde r of re m ova l. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(2)(D). W e grant the pe tition. 

# FIL ED APR 05 2016 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. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).The B IA e rre d a s a m atte r of la

wwhe n it a

p plie d the m o difie d c ate goric a l a pproa c h to c onc l ude tha

t Ha dda d’ s c onvic tion for pe tty the ft with a

prior c onvic tion, in viola

t ion of C a lifornia

Pe na l C o de §§ 484(a ) and 666, c onstitute d a n a ggrav at e d fe lony . Se e 8 U . S.C . §§ 1101(a)(43)(G); 1227(a )(2)(A)(iii). “ ‘ [A] pe tty the ft c onvic tion, unde r C a l. Pe na l C ode §§ 484(a ) and 666, is not a c ate goric a l m atc h

to the fe de ra l de finition of a the ft offe nse .’ ” Lope

z-Vale n c ia v . Ly nc h , 798 F.3d 863, 868 (9th C ir. 2015) (quoting Unite d State s v . Riv e ra, 658 F.3d 1073, 1077 (9th C ir. 2011)). Applying the fra m e w ork se t forth in De sc amps v . Unite d State s , 133 S. C t. 2276 (2013), a nd R e ndon v . Holde r , 764 F.3d 1077 (9th C ir. 2014), we re c e ntly

he l d tha t “ C a lifornia ’ s the ft sta

tute is both overbroa d a

nd indivisible [,] . . . [a

nd] should not be

subje c t e d to the m odifie d c ate goric a l a pproa c h .” Id . at 871; se e also Almanza–Arenas v . Ly nc h , No. 09–71415, 2015 W L 9462976, a

t *6 (9th C ir. De c . 28, 2015) (e n ba nc )
. Ac c o rdingly , “ a C a lifornia c onvic tion for the ft is ne ve r an a ggravate d fe lony .” Lope z -Vale nc ia , 798 F.3d a

t

2867. B e c a

use Ha d da d ha s not be e n c onvic te d of a n a g gravate d fe lony , the B IA e rre d by finding Ha dda d re m ova

ble pursua

n t to 8 U.S.C . § 1227(a )(2)(A)(iii). 1 B e c a use Ha dda d

is not re m ova

ble a s c ha rge d, we do not c onside r whe the r the B IA a buse d its disc re tion by

de ny ing Ha dda d’ s m otion to re m a nd to a pply for a wa ive r of ina dm i s sibility

unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1182(h). Nor do we c onside r Ha dda d’ s due proc e ss c ha l le nge . PE T IT IO N G RANT E D.

1 The B IA a l te rnative ly found tha t Ha dda d wa s re m ova

ble be c a use he susta ine d two c onvic tions for c rim e s involving m ora l turpitude(C IM T) tha t a re not a pa rt of a single sc h e m e . Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1227(a )(2)(A)(ii). R e ly ing on C ue v as Gaspar v . Gonzale

s , 430 F.3d 1013 (9th C ir. 2005), theB IA c o nc lude d tha t Ha dda d’ s fe lony

burgla ry c onvic tion, in viola

tion of C a lifornia Pe na l C ode § 459, qua lifie d a s a

C IM T. In its brie fing on a ppe a l, the gove rnm e nt now c onc e de s tha

t the B IA’ s le ga l ba sis for de te rm ining tha t a § 459 viola

tion qua lifie d a s a C IM T wa s inva lida

te d by o ur de c ision in He rnande z-C ruz v . Holde r , 651 F.3d 1094 (9th C ir. 2011). Thegove rnm e nt a lso c onc e de s tha t, e v e n a bse nt the B IA’ s m ispla c e d re lia

nc e on C ue v as-Gaspar , the doc um e n ts it subm itte d for a pplic ation of the m odifie d c ate goric a l a pproa c h are insuffic ie nt to provetha t Ha dda d’ s burgla ry c onvic tion wa s a

C IM T. W e the re fore do not c o nside r the e ffe c t of Re ndon v . Holde r , 764 F.3d 1077 (9th C ir. 2014), and A lmanza–Are nas v . Ly nc h , No. 09–71415, 2015 W

L 9462976 (9th C ir. De c . 28, 2015) (e n ba n c ), if a ny , on the B IA’ s C IM T a

na ly sis. 3