Case Name: Tomas Jacinto FRANCISCO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-09-28
Citations: 333 F. App'x 238
Docket Number: No. 06-74087
Parties: Tomas Jacinto FRANCISCO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 333
Pages: 238–239

Head Matter:
Tomas Jacinto FRANCISCO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-74087.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
Filed Sept. 28, 2009.
Tomas Jacinto Francisco, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-Distriet, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Lauren E. Fascett, Ronald E. Lefevre, Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Tomas Jacinto Francisco, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se 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. We grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.
Reviewing de novo, Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1159, 1163 (9th Cir.2006), we conclude that the agency erred in determining that Francisco was ineligible for cancellation of removal because he was convicted of an aggravated felony "crime of violence . for which the term of imprisonment [is] at least one year." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F). Francisco's conviction record states that he was convicted of a misdemeanor violation of Cal.Penal Code § 273.5(a) and sentenced to 60 days in jail.
We therefore grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings. In light of our disposition, we need not address Francisco's remaining contentions.
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.