Villa

MEMORANDUM ***

The BIA affirmed without opinion, so we review the IJ’s decision. Acosta v. Gonzotes, 439 F.3d 550, 552 (9th Cir.2006). The government argues that we lack jurisdiction because petitioner did not exhaust his administrative remedies, having appealed to the BIA but not filed a brief. The notice of appeal says that the reason for the appeal is that “the immigration judge erred when determining that Mr. Saavedra’s offense was aggravated.” The argument before the IJ focused upon the overbreadth of the Wyoming statute and whether the modified categorical approach could properly be applied. Under Kaganovich v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 894, 897 (9th Cir.2006), and Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1040-41 (9th Cir.2005), the notice of appeal to the BIA and the argument to the IJ sufficed as exhaustion, so we have jurisdiction.

Saavedra-Villa’s crime was not categorically “sexual abuse of a minor” because, as the IJ recognized and the government does not dispute, title 14, section 3-105 of the Wyoming Statutes is too broad for all violations to fall within the category. See Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 600 , 110 S.Ct. 2143 , 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990). Under the modified…