Case Name: Amando JURADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-29
Citations: 386 F. App'x 407
Docket Number: No. 09-2200
Parties: Amando JURADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 386
Pages: 407–408

Head Matter:
Amando JURADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-2200.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 10, 2010.
Decided: June 29, 2010.
Ivan Yacub, Yacub Law Offices, LLC, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle Gorden Latour, Assistant Director, Jessica E. Sherman, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition for review granted; vacated and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Amando Jurado, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge's decision, which found Jurado ineligible for special rule cancellation of removal under § 203 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act ("NACARA"), because he had been convicted of a "crime of violence" that qualified as an aggravated felony, and ordered him removed to El Salvador.
Before this court, Jurado contends the Board erred in concluding that his 1999 conviction under Va.Code Ann. § 18.2-57.2 (2009), for the assault and battery of a family or household member, qualified as a "crime of violence." See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) (2006); 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) (2006). In light of our recent opinion in United States v. White, 606 F.3d 144 (4th Cir.2010), we agree.
Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, vacate the Board's order, and remand this case to the Board for further consideration in light of White. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; VACATED AND REMANDED.
Pub.L. No. 105-100, 111 Stat. 2160, 2193-2201 (1997), amended by Pub. L. No. 105-139, 111 Stat. 2644, 2644-45 (1997) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 8 U.S.C.).