DocketNumber: 04-71040
Judges: Goodwin, Wallace, McKeown
Filed Date: 1/6/2012
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/5/2024
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 06 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALFREDO CHAVEZ, No. 04-71040 Petitioner, Agency No. A011-349-706 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 19, 2011 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Alfredo Chavez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under8 U.S.C. § 1252
. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). We review de novo questions of law, Pelayo-Garcia v. Holder,589 F.3d 1010
, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009), and we grant the petition for review and remand. Chavez’s 2002 conviction for oral copulation with a minor in violation of California Penal Code § 288a(b)(1), is not categorically an aggravated felony with respect to either of the federal generic definitions we have adopted for “sexual abuse of a minor” under8 U.S.C. § 1101
(a)(43)(A), because the statute of conviction lacks the elements of abuse, a four-year age difference between the defendant and the victim, and a victim under the age of 16. See Rivera-Cuartas v. Holder,605 F.3d 699
, 701-02 (9th Cir. 2010); Estrada-Espinoza v. Mukasey,546 F.3d 1147
, 1159 (9th Cir. 2008), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Aguila-Montes De Oca,655 F.3d 915
(9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). We therefore remand for the BIA to apply the modified categorical approach in the first instance. See Aguila-Montes De Oca,655 F.3d at 928
(proceeding to the modified categorical approach is permissible where the statute of conviction is missing a requisite element). PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 2 04-71040