NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL ANDERSON, AKA Sorin Florin No. 14-73870
Boroghina,
Agency No. A039-044-356
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Michael Anderson, a native and citizen of Romania, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s removal order, and denying a motion to remand. Our
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law.
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part
and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.
Anderson does not raise, and has therefore waived any challenge to, the
agency’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-
80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in an opening brief are
waived).
The BIA denied Anderson’s motion to remand, determining he had not
demonstrated that a change in law had materially affected his removability such
that he was no longer bound by his attorney’s concession that Anderson is
removable because his conviction for unlawful delivery of marijuana under Oregon
Revised Statutes § 475.860(2)(a) is an aggravated felony. However, the BIA did
not have the benefit of our decision in Sandoval v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 986 (9th Cir.
2017), which held that the “delivery” element of delivery of a controlled substance
under Oregon Revised Statutes § 475.992(1)(a) was not a categorical match to a
drug trafficking aggravated felony because it punishes conduct outside of the scope
of the federal equivalent. Accordingly, we remand for the BIA to consider
Anderson’s motion to remand in light of that decision. See Santiago-Rodriguez v.
Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 830-31 (9th Cir. 2011) (absent egregious circumstances, an
2 14-73870
attorney’s admission or concession is binding on an alien; egregious circumstances
include circumstances where binding the alien to the concession would be unjust,
such as if the propriety of the concession has been undercut by intervening law).
In light of this disposition, we need not address Anderson’s remaining
contentions.
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
3 14-73870