
    Roderick Rugnao REALON, a.k.a. Roderick Realon, a.k.a. Ricky Realon, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-72780.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 23, 2010.
    Walter S. Nomura, Stockton, CA, for Petitioner.
    Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Jennifer L. Lightbody, Esquire, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Roderick Rugnao Realon, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Sandoval-Lua v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir.2007), and we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

The BIA determined that Realon was ineligible for cancellation of removal because his conviction under Cal. Veh.Code § 10851(a), was categorically an aggravated felony theft offense. We subsequently held that Cal. Veh.Code § 10851(a) is not categorically a theft offense. See United States, v. Vidal, 504 F.3d 1072, 1074-75 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc).

The BIA did not conduct a modified categorical analysis to ascertain whether the record of conviction sufficiently establishes that Realon was convicted of the generic theft offense. See Sandoval-Lua, 499 F.3d at 1132. We therefore remand to the BIA in order for it to make this determination in the first instance. See Fregozo v. Holder, 576 F.Sd 1030, 1039 (9th Cir.2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     