U.S.

Department of Justice
I
I

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration 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
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.
Sincerely,

DOYlftL CtVvV
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk

Enclosure

Panel Members:
Guendelsberger, John

Use rte am: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index

Cite as: Anthony Martinez-Lopez, A205 920 662 (BIA April 20, 2015)
_,,p;;:;:;;;;:;+&2AhA

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

MARTINEZ-LOPEZ, ANTHONY
A205-920-662
FLORENCE CORRECTIONAL CENTER
P. 0. BOX 6900

U.S. Department of Justice

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Executive Office for Immigration Review

.

Falls Church, Virginia 20530

File:

Date:

A205 920 662 - Florence, AZ

APR 2 0 2015

In re: ANTHONY MARTINEZ- LOPEZ

APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:
ON BEHALF OF DHS:

Pro se

David C. Whipple
Assistant Chief Counsel

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 lbarra

Hernandez 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

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

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.

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

!JZ.d.t.&