Case Name: Saul LOPEZ-VELASCO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-05
Citations: 277 F. App'x 673
Docket Number: No. 05-75016
Parties: Saul LOPEZ-VELASCO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 277
Pages: 673–674

Head Matter:
Saul LOPEZ-VELASCO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-75016.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 22, 2008.
Filed May 5, 2008.
Michelle Gonzalez, Law Office of Michelle Gonzalez, Huntington Park, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Marshall Tamor Golding, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Saul Lopez-Velasco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying him cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and grant the petition for review.
After the agency's decisions in this case, the BIA held in Matter of Gonzalez-Silva, 24 I. & N. Dec. 218 (BIA 2007), that "an alien whose conviction precedes the effective date for section 237(a)(2)(E) of the [Immigration and Nationality] Act has not been 'convicted under' section 237(a)(2)" for purposes of cancellation of removal. Id. at 220. As Lopez-Velasco's conviction for violating Cal.Penal Code § 273.5 occurred in 1994, we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.
In light of our disposition, we need not address Lopez-Velasco's remaining contention.
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.