Case Name: Noe PEREZ-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-23
Citations: 585 F. App'x 564
Docket Number: No. 12-71095
Parties: Noe PEREZ-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 564–564

Head Matter:
Noe PEREZ-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-71095.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Aug. 12, 2014.
Filed Oct. 23, 2014.
Xavier Gonzales, Xavier Gonzales, Attorney at Law, P.C., Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner.
OIL, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Jesse Matthew Bless, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Noe Perez-Hernandez challenges the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision upholding the immigration judge's order finding him removable under section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), based on his conviction for offering to transport a controlled substance under Nevada Revised Statutes § 453.321. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), and we REMAND.
Following its decision in this case, the BIA decided In re Davey, 26 I. & N. Dec. 37, 40 (BIA 2012), in which it "conclude[d] that for purposes of section 237(a)(2)(B)(i), a crime 'involves' possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana for personal use if the particular acts that led to the alien's conviction were closely related to such conduct." Given that the Fourth Amended Information charged Perez-Hernandez with offering to transport 30 grams or less of marijuana for his own use, we remand for reconsideration in light of In re Davey.
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.