Ho Yim v. Loretta E. Lynch

Good Law
610 F. App'x 672
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 28, 201512-73079California561 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Ho Sang Yim pled nolo contendere to a charge of perjury under California Penal Code section 118(a). He was sentenced to three years in state prison. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision that Yim was removable under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (a)(2)(A)(iii), because he had been convicted of an aggravated felony, which includes “an offense relating to ... perjury ... for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year.... ” INA § 101(a)(43)(S), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(43)(S). Because the BIA did not perform the analysis “which we use to determine generic crimes for the purposes of categorical analysis of prior convictions,” United States v. Garcia-Santana, 774 F.3d 528, 543 (9th Cir.2014) (citing Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 , 110 S.Ct. 2143 , 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990), and “its progeny”), we remand to the BIA for a proper Taylor analysis.

To determine whether a specific crime is an aggravated felony, we apply the categorical approach. Rendon v. Holder, 764 F.3d 1077, 1082 (9th Cir.2014) (citing Taylor, 495 U.S. 575 , 110 S.Ct. 2143 ). Under this approach, we compare the statutory definition of a petitioner’s prior offense to a federal “generic crime.”…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.