NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 1 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LUIS CORRALES-NAVARRO, No. 19-70467
AKA Jose Corrales, AKA Jose Luis
Corrales, AKA Luis Corrales, AKA Jose Agency No. A020-451-318
Luis Navarro Corrales,
Petitioner, MEMORANDUM*
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 21, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Jose Luis Corrales-Navarro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision finding him removable. We have
*
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 under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Whether a crime is as an aggravated felony is
a question of law subject to de novo review. Jauregui-Cardenas v. Barr, 946 F.3d
1116, 1118 (9th Cir. 2020). We grant the petition for review and remand.
Corrales-Navarro was charged with removability based on his conviction for
hindering prosecution under Arizona Revised Statutes (“ARS”) § 13-2512. The
agency sustained the charge of having been convicted of an aggravated felony
offense relating to obstruction of justice. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii); see
also 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(S). However, ARS § 13-2512 is the “statutory
embodiment” of the common-law offense of being an accessory after the fact and
does not require an ongoing proceeding, see State v. Johnson, 156 P.3d 445, 451
(Ariz. Ct. App. 2007) (ARS § 13-2512 is “the statutory embodiment of the distinct,
independent, common-law offense of being an accessory after the fact.” (internal
quotation marks omitted)), and as a result the sole charge of removability against
Corrales-Navarro cannot be sustained, see Valenzuela Gallardo v. Barr, 968 F.3d
1053, 1069 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding California Penal Code § 32, accessory after
the fact, is not a categorical match to the generic offense of obstruction of justice
because it “encompasses interference with proceedings or investigations that are
not pending or ongoing.”).
We remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this order.
See Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004) (“In reviewing the
2 19-70467
decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency. If
we conclude that the BIA’s decision cannot be sustained upon its reasoning, we
must remand to allow the agency to decide any issues remaining in the case.”).
Corrales-Navarro’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
3 19-70467