Case Name: Jose Antonio MEZA-CASTILLO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-28
Citations: 261 F. App'x 978
Docket Number: No. 04-72407
Parties: Jose Antonio MEZA-CASTILLO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 261
Pages: 978–978

Head Matter:
Jose Antonio MEZA-CASTILLO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-72407.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 20, 2007 .
Filed Dec. 28, 2007.
Eudene B. Eunique, Esq., Ontario, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Antonio Meza-Castillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion an immigration judge's removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1159, 1163 (9th Cir.2006), and we grant the petition for review.
The agency's decisions preceded our determination in United States v. Vidal, 504 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc), that a conviction under Cal. Vehicle Code § 10851(a) is not categorically an aggravated felony. See id. at 1086. Moreover, as the government recognizes, the record of conviction in this case does not establish the factual predicate for Meza-Castillo's plea. Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See Ruiz-Vidal v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir.2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.