
    TRUNG KHAC NGUEN, a.k.a. Trung Khac Nguyen, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 08-72108, 09-71545.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed March 8, 2011.
    Mercedes Diem Vo, Mercedes Diem Vo & Associates, Inc., Westminster, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Brianne Whelan Cohen, Trial, Carol Fed-erighi, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. 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

In these consolidated petitions for review, Trung Khac Nguen, a native and citizen of Vietnam, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order and denying his subsequent motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). In No. 08-72108, we grant the petition for review and remand. In 09-71545, we dismiss the petition review.

The agency determined that petitioner was removable under the aggravated felony ground of deportation, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), based on his 1986 conviction for violating California Penal Code § 288(a). Subsequent to the agency’s decision in this case, we held in Ledezma-Galieia v. Holder, 636 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2010), that 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) does not apply to convictions that occurred prior to November 18,1988. We therefore grant the petition for review in No. 08-72108 and remand to the agency in light of Ledezma-Galicia.

In light of our remand, we do not reach case No. 09-71545.

In No. 08-72108: PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

In No. 09-71545: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     