Case Name: Irfan AHMED, Petitioner v. Loretta LYNCH, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-06
Citations: 672 F. App'x 472
Docket Number: No. 14-60903 Summary Calendar
Parties: Irfan AHMED, Petitioner v. Loretta LYNCH, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Judges: Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 672
Pages: 472–473

Head Matter:
Irfan AHMED, Petitioner v. Loretta LYNCH, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
No. 14-60903 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed January 6, 2017
Raed Gonzalez, Esq., Senior Attorney, Gonzalez Olivieri, L.L.C., Houston, TX, Sheridan Gary Green, Senior Attorney, Houston, TX, for Petitioner
Jesse Matthew Bless, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/OIL, Washington, DC, Office of Immigration Litigation, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Irfan Ahmed, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which upheld an order of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his application for adjustment of status and ordering him removed from the United States. The IJ found that Ahmed was deportable and that he could not adjust his status because his prior assault convictions under Texas Penal Code § 22.01(a)(1) were for crimes involving moral turpitude that made him inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). Because § 22.01(a)(1) proscribes some forms of assault that are not morally turpitudinous, the denial of Ahmed's adjustment application rested on the modified categorical approach, which the IJ and BIA used to narrow his prior convictions by reference to state court documents in accordance with Esparza-Rod-riguez v. Holder, 699 F.3d 821, 824-26 (5th Cir. 2012).
In Gomez-Perez v. Lynch, 829 F.3d 323, 328 n.5 (5th Cir. 2016), we recently held that to the extent Esparza-Rodriguez treated § 22.01(a)(1) as divisible and thus amenable to modified categorical analysis, it has been overruled by Mathis v. United States, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016). The parties now agree that remand is warranted. Accordingly, we GRANT the petition for review, VACATE the decision of the BIAi and REMAND the case for further consideration of Ahmed's application for adjustment of status.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.