Rosanes v. Holder

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 01 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARNEL PAVON ROSANES, aka Arnel No. 07-72704
Pabon Rosanes,
Agency No. A039-822-570
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 1, 2011**
Pasadena, California
Before: REINHARDT, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Arnel Pavon Rosanes (“Rosanes”), a native and citizen of the Philippines and
lawful permanent resident of the United States, petitions for review of a decision by
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
decision that he was removable pursuant to Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”)
§ 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)), for having committed an
aggravated felony in 1987. The BIA held that Rosanes was additionally removable
pursuant to INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(ii) (8 U.S.C. § 227(a)(2)(A)(ii)) for having committed
two crimes involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”), one being the failure to register as
a sex offender under California law.
Several significant legal changes have occurred since the BIA issued its
decision in this case. In Ledezma-Galicia v. Holder, 636 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2010),
we concluded that neither the Immigration Act of 1990 nor the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 impliedly repealed a prospective-
only provision of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988,which made aliens deportable for
aggravated felony convictions that took place on or after November 18, 1988. Id. at
1080. Because Rosanes’s aggravated felony conviction occurred prior to November
18, 1988, the government concedes Rosanes is not removable based on his conviction
of this offense alone.
Although the BIA also concluded that Rosanes’s failure to register as a sex
offender categorically constituted a CIMT, rendering him removable on alternate
grounds, we recently addressed several legal developments pertaining to this issue in
Pannu v. Holder, 639 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2011), and remanded for the “BIA to
2
reconsider whether [petitioner’s] crime constitutes a CIMT under the ‘proper
definition of moral turpitude.’” Id. at 1229 (quoting Matter of Silva-Trevino, 24 I. &
N. Dec. 687, 705-06 (A.G. 2008)). For the same reasons, we remand this case to the
BIA for further proceedings in light of our opinion in Pannu.
PETITION GRANTED IN PART and REMANDED IN PART for further
proceedings consistent with this disposition.
3