Case Name: Miguel Armando SIERRA-JACOBO, AKA Miguel Armando Sierra, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-22
Citations: 713 F. App'x 600
Docket Number: No. 15-73340
Parties: Miguel Armando SIERRA-JACOBO, AKA Miguel Armando Sierra, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 713
Pages: 600–601

Head Matter:
Miguel Armando SIERRA-JACOBO, AKA Miguel Armando Sierra, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 15-73340
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 13, 2018
Filed February 22, 2018
Maria Zlateva, Maria Zlateva, P.C., Salem, OR, for Petitioner
Bryan Stuart Beier, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Miguel Armando Sierra-Jacobo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his motion to terminate and ordering his removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand.
The BIA did not have the benefit of Sandoval v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2017), which held that the definition of "delivery" under Oregon Revised Statutes ("ORS") § 475.005 includes mere solicitation, when it held that delivery of marijuana for consideration under ORS § 475.860(2) and delivery of marijuana within 1,000 feet of a school under ORS § 475.862 were aggravated felonies. Thus, we remand for further proceedings consistent with that disposition.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.