MANUEL NAVAR-DIAZ V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-72636 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED JUN 20 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MANUEL NAVAR-DIAZ, AKA Manuel Diaz, AKA Manuel DeJesus Diaz, AKA Manuel Navardiaz, AKA Manuel DeJesus Navardiaz, AKA Manuel Dejesus Vavardiaz, No. 13-72636 Agency No. A092-837-484 MEMORANDUM* Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 14, 2016** Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Manuel Navar-Diaz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an * 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). immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand. The agency determined that Navar-Diaz’s theft conviction under California Penal Code § 487(a) was an aggravated felony theft offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) that rendered him removable. At the time it decided this case, the agency did not have the benefit of this court’s decision in Lopez-Valencia v. Lynch, 798 F.3d 863, 871 (9th Cir. 2015), concluding that “California’s theft statute is both overbroad and indivisible . . . and a conviction under it can never be a ‘theft offense’ as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G).” Because Navar-Diaz is no longer removable on this ground, we grant the petition for review, and remand. In light of this disposition, we need not reach Navar-Diaz’s remaining contentions regarding due process or his request for a continuance. PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 2 13-72636
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.
