
    Jose Luis CORRALES-NAVARRO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-72507.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued Nov. 21, 2014.
    Submitted: Dec. 30, 2014.
    Filed: March 31, 2016.
    K. Lee Hartzler, Esquire, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Rebecca Hoffberg Phillips, Esquire, Trial, Ada Elsie Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, Oil, Matthew Allan Spurlock, 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: THOMAS, Chief Judge, CHRISTEN, Circuit Judge, and SEABRIGHT, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable J. Michael Seabright, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Luis Corrales-Navarro, a native and citizen of Mexico, was convicted of hindering prosecution under Arizona Revised Statute § 13-25Í2. An Immigration Judge ordered him removed to Mexico, determining his conviction to be an aggravated felony because it is an offense relating to obstruction of justice under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(S). Applying the interpretation of “obstruction of justice” articulated in In re Valenzuela Gallardo, 25 I. & N. Dec. 838 (BIA 2012), the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Corrales-Na-varro’s appeal. Corrales-Navarro now petitions for review.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). In light of our decision in Valenzuela Gallardo v. Lynch, No. 12-72326, we remand to the Board for either application of the agency interpretation announced in In re Espinoza-Gonzalez, 22 I. & N. Dec. 889 (BIA 1999), or consideration of a new construction of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(S). Because we do not reach Corrales-Navarro’s various arguments, we deny as moot the Government’s motion to strike various portions of Corrales-Navarro’s reply brief.

PETITION GRANTED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

SEABRIGHT, District Judge,

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent for the reasons stated in my dissent from the majority Opinion in Valenzuela Gallardo v. Lynch, No. 12-72326. 
      
      . The parties are familiar with the facts, so we do not recount them in detail,
     
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     