Case Name: Rene Wilfredo Alvarado UMANZOR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-05
Citations: 431 F. App'x 553
Docket Number: No. 06-71328
Parties: Rene Wilfredo Alvarado UMANZOR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 431
Pages: 553–553

Head Matter:
Rene Wilfredo Alvarado UMANZOR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-71328.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 10, 2011.
Filed May 5, 2011.
Stephen William Manning, Immigrant Law Group PC, Portland, OR, for Petitioner.
Genevieve Holm, OIL, Richard Zanfardino, 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: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, 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
Rene Wilfredo Alvarado Umanzor, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") 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.
Alvarado Umanzor contends that his conviction for sexual abuse in the first degree in violation of Oregon Revised Statutes § 163.427 does not categorically constitute sexual abuse of a minor as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A) and that he is therefore not removable as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony after admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). We reject the government's contention that Alvarado Umanzor failed to exhaust this issue. Kaganovich v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 894, 897 (9th Cir.2006) ("Petitioner's failure to elaborate on [an] argument in his brief to the BIA is immaterial to our jurisdiction.").
Because the BIA did not address whether Alvarado Umanzor's state conviction was categorically an aggravated felony, we remand to the BIA to allow it to address this contention in the first instance. See Fregozo v. Holder, 576 F.3d 1030, 1039 (9th Cir.2009).
In light of our disposition, we do not address Alvarado Umanzor'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.