Case Name: Jose Martin LIMON-ROBLES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-28
Citations: 424 F. App'x 689
Docket Number: No. 06-71175
Parties: Jose Martin LIMON-ROBLES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 424
Pages: 689–690

Head Matter:
Jose Martin LIMON-ROBLES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-71175.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 28, 2011.
John Martin Pope, Pope & Associates, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Erica Miles, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN and BYBEE, 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
Jose Martin Limon-Robles, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.
The agency determined that Limon-Robles was removable under the aggravated felony ground of deportation, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a) (2) (A) (iii), based on his 1987 conviction for violating Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-1405, 1401, 3821, 1001, 604.01, 702, 801 and 812. Subsequent to the agency's decision in this case, we held in Ledezma-Galicia v. Holder, 636 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir.2010), that 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) does not apply to convictions that occurred prior to November 18,1988. We therefore grant the petition for review and remand to the agency in light of Ledezma-Galicia.
In light of our disposition, we need not address Limon-Robles' remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.