Rafael Antonio Rodriguez v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAFAEL ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73234
Agency No. A073-962-583
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Rafael Antonio Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of
* 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
NOV 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 10-73234
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for
review and remand.
The BIA did not have the benefit of Lozano-Arredondo v. Sessions, 866 F.3d
1082 (9th Cir. 2017), which set aside the BIA’s interpretation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(b)(1)(C) in Matter of Cortez Canales, 25 I. & N. Dec. 301 (BIA 2010)
(“within five years of admission” requirement for deportability on the basis of a
crime involving moral turpitude conviction did not apply to cancellation of
removal for non-permanent residents), when it denied cancellation of removal.
Thus, we remand for further proceedings consistent with that disposition.
We do not reach the government’s contentions regarding Rodriguez’s
alleged ineligibility for cancellation of removal under Mancilla-Delafuente v.
Lynch, 804 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir. 2015). See Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 658 n.16
(9th Cir. 2000).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --