Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Raimundo SANDOVAL-CARRANZA, aka Raymundo Sr. Sandoval, Petitioner, v. Robert M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM **
Raimundo Sandoval-Carranza, 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 decision finding him removable and pretermitting his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008). We grant the petition and remand.
Sandoval-Carranza was charged with removability based on his conviction under California Penal Code § 32. The agency sustained that charge and concluded that Sandoval-Carranza was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal because of that conviction. Our decision in Valenzuela Gallardo v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1053, 1069 (9th Cir. 2020), clarifies that “California Penal Code § 32 is not a categorical match with obstruction of justice under [Immigration and Nationality Act] § 101(a)(43)(S)․” Thus, this charge of removability cannot be sustained, and the conviction does not support pretermitting Sandoval-Carranza's application for cancellation of removal.
We remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this order. See Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency. If we conclude that the BIA's decision cannot be sustained upon its reasoning, we must remand to allow the agency to decide any issues remaining in the case.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-73374
Decided: January 28, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)