UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE LUIS FLORES-VASQUEZ, No. 20-73447

Petitioner, Agency No. A208-080-952 v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney OPINION General,

Respondent.

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

Argued and Submitted November 9, 2022 Portland, Oregon

Filed August 31, 2023 Before: Patrick J. Bumatay and Gabriel P. Sanchez, Circuit Judges, and M. Miller Baker, * International Trade Judge.

Opinion by Judge Sanchez; Dissent by Judge Baker * The Honorable M. Miller Baker, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. 2 FLORES-VASQUEZ V. GARLAND

SUMMARY **

Immigration

The panel granted a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of an appeal of an immigration judge’s order denying petitioner Jose Luis Flores-Vasquez’s application for cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The panel held that a conviction under Oregon Revised Statute § 163.190 does not constitute a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). The panel explained that in the BIA’s precedential decision in Matter of J-G-P-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 642 (BIA 2019), which held that § 163.190 categorically qualifies as a CIMT, the BIA erred in its analysis of this court’s prior caselaw. The panel remanded for further consideration of petitioner’s application for cancellation of removal. In an unpublished disposition, the panel denied a petition for review as to the denial of asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Dissenting, Judge Baker disagreed with the majority’s determination that the BIA’s interpretation of a CIMT in Matter of J-G-P- conflicts with this court’s prior caselaw and is therefore unreasonable. Judge Baker would apply Chevron deference to Matter of J-G-P-, because the term “moral turpitude” is ambiguous, and the BIA’s construction of it is ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. FLORES-VASQUEZ V. GARLAND 3

not arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.

COUNSEL Jonathan C. Gonzales (argued) and Jeffrey C. Gonzales, Gonzales Gonzales & Gonzales, Portland, Oregon, for Petitioner. Christina R. Zeidan (argued), Trial Attorney; John S. Hogan, Assistant Director; Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Respondent.

OPINION SANCHEZ, Circuit Judge:

Jose Luis Flores-Vasquez (“Flores-Vasquez”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal. He argues that the BIA erred in finding that his prior menacing conviction under Oregon Revised Statute § 163.190 constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”), rendering him ineligible for cancellation of removal. We agree and grant this portion of the petition. 1

1 Flores-Vasquez’s other claims are addressed in an unpublished memorandum disposition filed concurrently with this opinion. 4 FLORES-VASQUEZ V. GARLAND

I. Flores-Vasquez entered the United States without inspection in 1991. He visited Mexico for a few weeks before returning to the United States without inspection in 1998 and has not left the country since. Flores-Vasquez’s wife is a lawful permanent reside