Armando Naranjo-Barrajas v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
JT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARMANDO NARANJO-BARRAJAS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 05-76737
07-72147
Agency No. A092-115-554
MEMORANDUM *
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Armando Naranjo-Barrajas, 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 (“IJ”)
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

JT/Research 05-76737 2
decision denying his application for adjustment of status and a BIA order denying
his motion to reopen alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petitions for review and remand.
In No. 05-76737, the IJ denied Naranjo-Barrajas’ adjustment of status
application solely because at the time of his hearing the United States Citizenship
and Immigration Services had not processed the I-130 visa petition submitted on
his behalf by his United States citizen daughter, which has since been approved.
We remand to the agency for reconsideration of Naranjo-Barrajas’ adjustment
application in light of the BIA’s intervening decision in Matter of Hashmi, 24 I. &
N. Dec. 785 (BIA 2009). See generally INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002)
(per curiam).
In No. 07-72147, the BIA concluded that Naranjo-Barrajas’ prior counsel’s
failure to challenge the IJ’s conclusion that Naranjo-Barrajas’ conviction under
California Penal Code § 273.5(a) is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude
did not prejudice his appeal to the BIA from the IJ’s decision denying his
cancellation of removal application. The BIA, however, did not have the benefit of
our intervening decision in Morales-Garcia v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1058, 1067 (9th
Cir. 2009), and we, therefore, remand to the BIA for reconsideration of whether

-- 2 of 3 --

JT/Research 05-76737 3
prior counsel’s performance prejudiced his appeal. See generally Ventura, 537
U.S. at 16.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --