RAIMUNDO SANDOVAL-CARRANZA, AKA Raymundo Sr. Sandoval v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAIMUNDO SANDOVAL-CARRANZA,
AKA Raymundo Sr. Sandoval,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-73374
Agency No. A092-168-012
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Raimundo Sandoval-Carranza, 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 decision finding him removable and pretermitting his
application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JAN 28 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-73374
§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163,
1166 (9th Cir. 2008). We grant the petition and remand.
Sandoval-Carranza was charged with removability based on his conviction
under California Penal Code § 32. The agency sustained that charge and
concluded that Sandoval-Carranza was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of
removal because of that conviction. Our decision in Valenzuela Gallardo v. Barr,
968 F.3d 1053, 1069 (9th Cir. 2020), clarifies that “California Penal Code § 32 is
not a categorical match with obstruction of justice under [Immigration and
Nationality Act] § 101(a)(43)(S) . . . .” Thus, this charge of removability cannot be
sustained, and the conviction does not support pretermitting Sandoval-Carranza’s
application for cancellation of removal.
We remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this order.
See Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004) (“In reviewing the
decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency. If
we conclude that the BIA’s decision cannot be sustained upon its reasoning, we
must remand to allow the agency to decide any issues remaining in the case.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --