Case Name: Adan ESPINOZA-ESCOBEDO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-08
Citations: 419 F. App'x 748
Docket Number: No. 06-73950
Parties: Adan ESPINOZA-ESCOBEDO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 419
Pages: 748–748

Head Matter:
Adan ESPINOZA-ESCOBEDO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73950.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed March 8, 2011.
Rhoda Sherif, Law Office of Rhoda Sherif, San Diego, CA, for petitioner.
David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Stephen Elliott, Esquire, Anthony Paul Nicas-tro, Esquire, Trial, OIL, DOJ-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: 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
Adan Espinoza-Escobedo, 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 1977 conviction for violating California Penal Code § 245(a). Subsequent to the agency's decision in this case, we held in Ledezmar-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 Ledezmar-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.