Opinion ID: 4240002
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Theft Offense

Text: In reviewing a petition, we “consider only the grounds relied upon by the BIA.” Singh v. Holder, 649 F.3d 1161, 1164 n.6 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). When the BIA’s decision “cannot be sustained upon its reasoning, we must remand to allow the agency to 3 Ayala-Nicanor’s additional suggestion that Johnson should not apply to the term “violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 16, Ayala-Nicanor, 659 F.3d at 751 n.3, is in tension with our later decision in Rodriguez-Castellon v. Holder, 733 F.3d 847, 854 (9th Cir. 2013), where we held clearly that Johnson’s definition of violence applies in the 18 U.S.C. § 16 context. Because the issue of Johnson’s applicability to § 16 was not “presented for review” in Ayala-Nicanor—a case that concerned only the term “crime of violence” as used in the Sentencing Guidelines—we consider its treatment of 18 U.S.C. § 16 non-binding dictum. Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 751 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (per curiam). SOLORIO-RUIZ V. SESSIONS 11 decide any issues remaining in the case.” Andia v. Ashcroft,