Case Name: Jose Antonio GARCIA-COREAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-20
Citations: 322 F. App'x 576
Docket Number: No. 06-71835
Parties: Jose Antonio GARCIA-COREAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, NOONAN, Circuit Judge, and EDMUNDS, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 322
Pages: 576–576

Head Matter:
Jose Antonio GARCIA-COREAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-71835.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 11, 2009.
Filed April 20, 2009.
Todd Becraft, Esquire, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
David V. Bernal, Esquire, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Esquire, Lance Lomond Jol-ley, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, CAS-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, NOONAN, Circuit Judge, and EDMUNDS, District Judge.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California Penal Code § 69 is not limited to the use or threat of force against the person or property of another, and is therefore not categorically a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16. Jordison v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th Cir. 2007). Because the state offense is missing this element of the generic offense, the modified categorical approach is inapplicable. Navarro-Lopez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1063, 1073 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc).
The petition is GRANTED; the removal order of the Board of Immigration Appeals is VACATED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.