Nghia Huu Tang 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 Honorable Donald E. Walter, Senior United States District Judge
for Western Louisiana, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NGHIA HUU TANG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71507
Agency No. A028-019-969
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted July 12, 2010
Seattle, Washington
Before: RYMER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and WALTER, Senior District
Judge.**
Nghia Huu Tang petitions for review of a final order of removal issued by
the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). We dismiss the petition.
FILED
JUL 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

1 Tang faults the BIA for mistakenly relying on Matter of Palacios, 22 I &
N Dec. 434 (BIA 1998), something we do not decide as our review is de novo.
2 We do not consider Tang’s further argument that the government failed to
submit enough additional evidence to show he was found guilty under subsection
(1)(a), because he made no such argument before the BIA.
2
Assuming (as the parties do) that Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.325 does not
categorically qualify as a crime of violence, Tang’s conviction for first degree
arson constituted an aggravated felony under the modified categorical approach.
The judgment makes clear that Tang was found guilty of the crime in Count 1 of
the indictment, which mirrors subsection 1(a) of § 164.325. 1 This means the court
found that by starting the fire, Tang intentionally damaged the property of someone
else. In turn, this constitutes a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16. 2
Tang is deportable due to his conviction of an aggravated felony. We need
not address the BIA’s conclusion that Tang is also deportable for committing two
crimes of moral turpitude.
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --