Limon-Robles, et al v. Holder, No. 06-71175 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED MAR 28 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE MARTIN LIMON-ROBLES, Petitioner, No. 06-71175 Agency No. A035-825-304 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 8, 2011 ** Before: FARRIS, O SCANNLAIN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Jose Martin Limon-Robles, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings. * 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 agency determined that Limon-Robles was removable under the aggravated felony ground of deportation, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), based on his 1987 conviction for violating Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 13-1405, 1401, 3821, 1001, 604.01, 702, 801 and 812. Subsequent to the agency s decision in this case, we held in Ledezma-Galicia v. Holder, Nos. 03-73648, 04-35048, 2010 WL 5174979 (9th Cir. Dec. 22, 2010), that 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) does not apply to convictions that occurred prior to November 18, 1988. We therefore grant the petition for review and remand to the agency in light of Ledezma-Galicia. In light of our disposition, we need not address Limon-Robles remaining contentions. PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. BYBEE, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgement: I reluctantly concur in the judgment. I continue to believe that LedezmaGalicia was wrongly decided. See Ledezma-Galicia v. Holder, ____ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Dec. 22, 2010) (Bybee, J., dissenting). 2 06-71175

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.