Roderick Rugnao Realon, a.k.a. Roderick Realon, a.k.a. Ricky Realon v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

04-72780Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit23.09.2010

Gesamter Gesetzestext

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODERICK RUGNAO REALON, a.k.a.
Roderick Realon, a.k.a. Ricky Realon,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 04-72780
Agency No. A038-980-434
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Roderick Rugnao Realon, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for
cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
SEP 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

04-72780 2
de novo questions of law, Sandoval-Lua v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th
Cir. 2007), and we grant the petition for review and remand for further
proceedings.
The BIA determined that Realon was ineligible for cancellation of removal
because his conviction under Cal. Veh. Code § 10851(a), was categorically an
aggravated felony theft offense. We subsequently held that Cal. Veh. Code
§ 10851(a) is not categorically a theft offense. See United States. v. Vidal, 504
F.3d 1072, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc).
The BIA did not conduct a modified categorical analysis to ascertain
whether the record of conviction sufficiently establishes that Realon was convicted
of the generic theft offense. See Sandoval-Lua, 499 F.3d at 1132. We therefore
remand to the BIA in order for it to make this determination in the first instance.
See Fregozo v. Holder, 576 F.3d 1030, 1039 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.