Case Name: Luis Javier ROSAS-CASTANEDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-04
Citations: 655 F.3d 875
Docket Number: No. 10-70087
Parties: Luis Javier ROSAS-CASTANEDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ROBERT E. COWEN, A. WALLACE TASHIMA, and BARRY G. SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 655
Pages: 875–886

Head Matter:
Luis Javier ROSAS-CASTANEDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-70087.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Dec. 9, 2010.
Filed Jan. 4, 2011.
Amended Sept. 12, 2011.
John M. DeStefano, III (argued), Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P., Phoenix, AZ, for the petitioner.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director; James E. Grimes (argued), Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the respondent.
Before: ROBERT E. COWEN, A. WALLACE TASHIMA, and BARRY G. SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
The Honorable Robert E. Cowen, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
Order; Dissent to Order by Chief Judge KOZINSKI; Opinion by Judge SILVERMAN.
ORDER
The opinion filed on January 4, 2011, and published at 630 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2011) is amended as follows:
At slip opinion page 272 [630 F.3d at 889], lines 15-16, replace < . and we remand to the BIA for proceedings consistent with this opinion. > with < . and we remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion to permit the government to put forth reliable evidence to show that the petitioner was convicted of an aggravated felony. >
With the opinion as amended, the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Judge Silverman has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judges Cowen and Tashima have so recommended. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc, and the matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R.App. P. 35. The petition for rehearing en banc is denied.
No future petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc will be entertained.
IT IS SO ORDERED.