Francisco Javier Luna 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 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
FRANCISCO JAVIER LUNA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-72002
Agency No. A030-458-275
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Javier Luna, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
FILED
JAN 12 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-72002 2
§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Mielewczyk v. Holder, 575 F.3d 992,
994 (9th Cir. 2009), and we grant the petition for review.
The statute of conviction, proscribes, among other offenses, an “offer to . . .
transfer marijuana.” See Ariz. Rev. Stats. § 13-3405(A)(4). It therefore includes a
solicitation offense, see Mielewczyk, 575 F.3d at 998 n.4, and is not categorically a
drug trafficking offense, see United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 247 F.3d 905, 909
(9th Cir. 2001) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 cmt.
n.4 (2002), as recognized in Guerrero-Silva v. Holder, 599 F.3d 1090, 1092-93
(9th Cir. 2010). The agency therefore erred insofar as it concluded that a
conviction under Ariz. Rev. Stats. § 13-3405 is categorically an aggravated felony
drug trafficking crime under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B).
Luna adequately exhausted this issue before the BIA and presented it on
appeal, see Vizcarra-Ayala v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 870, 873-74 (9th Cir. 2008);
Abassi v. INS, 305 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Huerta-Guevara v.
Ashcroft, 321 F.3d 883, 886 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because it is unclear whether the agency applied the modified categorical
approach, we remand for further proceedings. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16
(2002). In light of our disposition, we do not reach Luna’s remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --