Case: 14-60903 Document: 00513824290 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
No. 14-60903
Fifth Circuit
FILED
Summary Calendar January 6, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
IRFAN AHMED, Clerk
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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