Case Name: SUNG SUK HAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-30
Citations: 305 F. App'x 479
Docket Number: No. 05-75045
Parties: SUNG SUK HAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 305
Pages: 479–479

Head Matter:
SUNG SUK HAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-75045.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.
Filed Dec. 30, 2008.
Frank E. Ronzio, Esq., Ronzio & Associates, Los Angeles, 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, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Anthony C. Payne, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: WALLACE, TROTT, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Sung Suk Han, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Estrada-Espinoza v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc), and we grant the petition for review.
Subsequent to the agency's decisions in this case, we determined that a conviction under California Penal Code § 261.5(c) is not categorically a conviction for "sexual abuse of a minor" under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A). Estrada-Espinoza, 546 F.3d at 1160. Moreover, the modified categorical approach cannot be used to conform Han's conviction to the generic definition of "sexual abuse of a minor." Id. As Han's § 261.5(c) conviction was the basis for the agency's removal order, we grant the petition for review.
Han's counsel is reminded that unpublished dispositions filed before January 1, 2007 may not be cited to this court. See 9th Cir. R. 36-3(e).
PETITION GRANTED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.