Duenas-Alvarez

concurring.

I concur because I am bound to do so by Cabantac v. Holder, No. 09-71336, 736 F.3d 787 , 2013 WL 4046052 (9th Cir. Aug. 9, 2013) (per curiam), and United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679 (9th Cir.2012).

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS ALEXANDER DUENAS- No. 04-74471

ALVAREZ,

Petitioner, Agency No.

A072-984-337

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney OPINION General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued March 7, 2011 Resubmitted August 13, 2013 Pasadena, California

Filed August 20, 2013

Before: Stephen Reinhardt, Susan P. Graber,* and Kim McLane Wardlaw, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Graber; Concurrence by Judge Reinhardt

* Judge Susan Graber was drawn to replace Judge Betty Fletcher. She has read the briefs, reviewed the record, and listened to the recording of oral argument held on March 7, 2011. DUENAS-ALVAREZ V. HOLDER

SUMMARY**

Immigration

Following the Supreme Court’s order in Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007), vacating and remanding this court’s opinion in Duenas-Alvarez v. Gonzales, 176 F. App'x 820 (9th Cir. 2006) (unpublished), the panel denied Luis Alexander Duenas-Alvarez’s petition for review.

The panel held that the offense of taking a vehicle without…

*814 OPINION

Petitioner Luis Alexander Duenas-Alvarez is a native and citizen of Peru who entered the United States in 1990. He became a lawful permanent resident in 1998. In 2002, he was convicted of having violated California Vehicle Code section 10851(a). Thereafter, removal proceedings were initiated. An immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) found Petitioner removable because he had committed a theft offense that qualified as an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(43). Petitioner sought review in this court. We granted the petition and remanded on the ground that section 10851(a) criminalizes aiding and abetting, which falls beyond the scope of a generic theft offense. Duenas-Alvarez v. Gonzales, 176 Fed.Appx. 820 (9th Cir.2006) (unpublished). The Supreme Court then granted certiorari, vacated our decision, and remanded the case to us. Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 , 127 S.Ct. 815 , 166 L.Ed.2d 683 (2007). We now deny the petition for review.

The question for decision is whether the government proved that Petitioner was convicted of a qualifying felony theft offense. Petitioner raises two arguments: (1) it is not clear that he was…