, I

I

MARTINEZ-LOPEZ, ANTHONY A205-920-662

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board of Immigration Appeals Qffice of the Clerk

5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, Virginia 20530

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - FLO P .0. Box 25158

FLORENCE CORRECTIONAL CENTER P. 0. BOX 6900

Phoenix, AZ 85002

FLORENCE, AZ 85132

Name: MARTINEZ-LOPEZ, ANTHONY A 205-920-662

Date of this notice: 4/20/2015

Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.

Enclosure

Panel Members: Guendelsberger, John

Sincerely,

DOYlftL CtVvV

Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Use rte am: Docket

_,,p;;:;:;;;;;;;;;;:;+&2Ah®A

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index

Imm

igrant & Refugee A

ppellate Center | w

ww

.irac.net

Cite as: Anthony Martinez-Lopez, A205 920 662 (BIA April 20, 2015)

U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 20530

.

File: A205 920 662 - Florence, AZ

In re: ANTHONY MARTINEZ- LOPEZ

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

APPEAL

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Pro se

ON BEHALF OF DHS: David C. Whipple Assistant Chief Counsel

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Date: APR 2 0 2015

This case is before us pursuant to a February 27, 2015, order by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granting the government's unopposed motion to remand this matter to the Board. We will remand the record to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings.

The respondent is a native and citizen of Mexico who was charged with removability for being present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, and having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). See sections 212(a)(6)(A)(i) and (2)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) and (2)(A)(i)(I), respectively. The respondent conceded the first charge, and the Immigration Judge sustained the second charge, finding that the respondent's conviction for Taking the Identity of Another, under Arizona Revised Statutes§ 13-2008, as evidenced by his conviction records, was "categorically" a CIMT. See July 16, 2013, I.J. Dec. at 2013. The Immigration Judge also found that the respondent's conviction barred him from cancellation of removal, and remarked that the respondent's length ohime in the United States is "somewhat complicated." Id. On November 25, 2013, the Board dismissed the respondent's appeal of the Immigration Judge's decision.

In its motion to remand before the court of appeals, the government requested that the Board determine the effect of intervening case law on the respondent's removability, citing to lbarra­Hernandez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 1280 (9th Cir. 2014). The government also stated that the matter of whether the criminal conduct at issue was for the purpose of gaining some value should be discussed, citing to Hernandez-Cruz v. Holder, 651 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2011). In light of the government's motion to remand, evolving case law, and the Board's limits on fact finding in the course of adjudicating appeals, we find it appropriate to remand the record for the Immigration Judge to readdress the respondent's removability and eligibility for relief. On remand, the parties should have an opportunity to present arguments and update the evidentiary record as appropriate. The Immigration Judge may address any issues necessary to resolve the respondent's case. Accordingly, the following order will be issued.

ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and the entry of a new decision.

GtlZ@L_ !JZ.d.t.&

Imm

igrant & Refugee A

ppellate Center | w

ww

.irac.net

Cite as: Anthony Martinez-Lopez, A205 920 662 (BIA April 20, 2015)