Case Name: Luis HERNANDEZ-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-28
Citations: 416 F. App'x 660
Docket Number: No. 06-71171
Parties: Luis HERNANDEZ-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 416
Pages: 660–660

Head Matter:
Luis HERNANDEZ-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-71171.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed Feb. 28, 2011.
Elizabeth Torres, Foss And Torres, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Kevin James Conway, Esquire, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Susan Houser, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, 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
Luis Hernandez-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 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, and we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.
The agency determined that petitioner was removable under the aggravated felony ground of deportation, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), based on his 1987 conviction for violating California Penal Code § 288(a). Subsequent to the agency's decision in this case, we held in Ledezma-Galicia, v. Holder, 636 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2010), that 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) does not apply to convictions that occurred prior to November 18,1988. We therefore grant the petition for review and remand to the agency in light of Ledezma-Galicia.
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.