Maria Guadalupe Perez- Vazquez 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).
The Honorable Lynn S. Adelman, United States District Judge for the***
Eastern District of Wisconsin, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA GUADALUPE PEREZ-
VAZQUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71858
Agency No. A089-621-105
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2012**
San Francisco, California
Before: TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges, and ADELMAN, District
Judge.***
Maria Guadalupe Perez-Vazquez petitions for review of a final order of
removal denying cancellation of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals held
FILED
FEB 27 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

The “catchall” provides, “[t]he fact that any person is not within any of the1
foregoing classes shall not preclude a finding that for other reasons such person is
or was not of good moral character.” Id.
We decline to consider the remaining arguments made by petitioner and the2
government. Moreover, the scope of our review is limited to the grounds actually
relied on by the BIA. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th
Cir. 2011).
2
that Perez-Vazquez’s 2002 California Welfare and Institutions Code § 10980(c)(2)
“felony” welfare fraud conviction was an adverse factor that weighed against good
moral character under the “catchall” sentence of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f). However, the1
conviction was not a felony. It was reduced to a misdemeanor at sentencing
pursuant to California Penal Code § 17(b)(3). The Board was bound by the state’s
characterization of the crime as a misdemeanor. Garcia-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 334
F.3d 840, 845 (9th Cir. 2003). Therefore, we remand for the BIA to reconsider its
good moral character determination.2
PETITION GRANTED AND REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --