Ky Lay Luong 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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KY LAY LUONG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74503
Agency No. A022-102-119
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted November 1, 2010
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER, TALLMAN and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ky Lay Luong petitions for review of his removal order and the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his applications for relief from removal. We
have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition for review.
The parties are familiar with the facts of the case so we do not repeat them
here. Luong cannot be removed on the basis of his 1986 conviction, the sole basis
FILED
DEC 28 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
alleged in his amended Notice to Appear. Ledezma-Galicia v. Holder, 599 F.3d
1055, 1075 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that “8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) does not
apply to convictions . . . that occurred prior to November 18, 1988.”). In addition,
§ 1252(d) does not foreclose his claim. Garcia-Ramirez v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d
935, 938 (9th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (“Retroactivity challenges to immigration
laws implicate legitimate due process considerations that need not be exhausted in
administrative proceedings because the BIA cannot give relief on such claims.”).
Because Luong is not removable as charged, we do not consider Luong’s
claim regarding his applications for relief. We leave to the government whether to
institute new removal proceedings based on Luong’s other convictions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED.

-- 2 of 2 --