Irfan Ahmed v. Loretta Lynch

672 F. App'x 472
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 6, 2017
Docket14-60903 Summary Calendar
StatusUnpublished

This text of 672 F. App'x 472 (Irfan Ahmed v. Loretta Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Irfan Ahmed v. Loretta Lynch, 672 F. App'x 472 (5th Cir. 2017).

Opinion

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 *473 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 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-Rod-riguez 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, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016). The parties now agree that remand is warranted. Accordingly, we GRANT the petition for review, VACATE the decision of the BIAi and REMAND the case for further consideration of Ahmed’s application for adjustment of status.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gaspar Esparza Rodriguez v. Eric Holder, Jr.
699 F.3d 821 (Fifth Circuit, 2012)
Mathis v. United States
579 U.S. 500 (Supreme Court, 2016)
Hermenegildo Gomez-Perez v. Loretta Lynch
829 F.3d 323 (Fifth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
672 F. App'x 472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/irfan-ahmed-v-loretta-lynch-ca5-2017.