Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Raimundo SANDOVAL-CARRANZA, aka Raymundo Sr. Sandoval, Petitioner, v. Robert M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 18-73374

Decided: January 28, 2021

Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Evangeline G. Abriel, Director, Legal Analysis, Research, and Writing, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA, for Petitioner Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Joseph Anthony O'Connell, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent


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.”).


Copied to clipboard