Irfan Ahmed v. Loretta Lynch, No. 14-60903 (5th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-60903 Document: 00513824290 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 14-60903 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED January 6, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk IRFAN AHMED, Petitioner v. LORETTA LYNCH, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A078 993 358 Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Irfan Ahmed, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which upheld an order of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his application for adjustment of status and ordering him removed from the United States. The IJ found that Ahmed was deportable and that he could not adjust his status because his prior assault convictions under Texas Penal Code § 22.01(a)(1) were for crimes involving Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 14-60903 Document: 00513824290 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/06/2017 No. 14-60903 moral turpitude that made him inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). Because § 22.01(a)(1) proscribes some forms of assault that are not morally turpitudinous, the denial of Ahmed’s adjustment application rested on the modified categorical approach, which the IJ and BIA used to narrow his prior convictions by reference to state court documents in accordance with Esparza-Rodriguez v. Holder, 699 F.3d 821, 824-26 (5th Cir. 2012). In Gomez-Perez v. Lynch, 829 F.3d 323, 328 n.5 (5th Cir. 2016), we recently held that to the extent Esparza-Rodriguez treated § 22.01(a)(1) as divisible and thus amenable to modified categorical analysis, it has been overruled by Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016). The parties now agree that remand is warranted. Accordingly, we GRANT the petition for review, VACATE the decision of the BIA, and REMAND the case for further consideration of Ahmed’s application for adjustment of status. 2
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.
