Case Name: Long Ching YOA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-26
Citations: 304 F. App'x 630
Docket Number: No. 05-76838
Parties: Long Ching YOA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 304
Pages: 630–631

Head Matter:
Long Ching YOA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-76838.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.
Filed Dec. 26, 2008.
Frank P. Sprouls, Esq, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Esq, John D. Williams, Esq, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, TROTT, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Long Ching Yoa, a native and citizen of Cambodia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo whether an offense qualifies as an aggravated felony, Ruiz-Morales v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1219, 1221 (9th Cir.2004), and we grant the petition for review.
An intervening change in the law requires us to remand the petition because Yoa's conviction for violating Cal.Penal Code § 261.5(c) is not categorically for "sexual abuse of a minor" under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A), Estrada-Espinoza v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1147, 1159 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc), and the modified categorical approach cannot be used to conform his conviction to the generic offense, id. at 1160. We therefore remand for the agency to consider Yoa's applications for relief.
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.