Case Name: Thavy CHUM, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-04
Citations: 669 F. App'x 455
Docket Number: No. 13-70972
Parties: Thavy CHUM, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 455–456

Head Matter:
Thavy CHUM, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-70972
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 27, 2016
Filed October 04, 2016
Julia Cherlow, Glaser Weil LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Jacqueline Dan, Staff Attorney, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, Garden Grove, CA, for Petitioner
Margaret Anne O’Donnell, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigar tion, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, 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
Thavy Chum, a native and citizen of Cambodia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review, and remand.
Chum was convicted of accessory to a felony under California Penal Code § 32. Applying the interpretation of "obstruction of justice" articulated in Matter of Valenzuela Gallardo, 25 I. & N. Dec. 838 (BIA 2012), the BIA concluded that Chum was removable for having committed an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), because her conviction was for "an offense relating to obstruction of justice" under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(S).
In light of our decision in Valenzuela Gallardo v. Lynch, 818 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 2016), we remand to the BIA for either application of the agency interpretation announced in Matter of Espinoza-Gonzalez, 22 I. & N. Dec. 889 (BIA 1999), or consideration of a new construction of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(S).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Chum's remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
¶¾⅛ disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.