
    Jose Antonio MEZA-CASTILLO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-72407.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.
    
    Filed Dec. 28, 2007.
    Amended Jan. 30, 2009.
    Eudene B. Eunique-Valle, Law Office of Eudene Eunique-Valle, Lucerne Valley, CA, for Petitioner.
    John Clifford Cunningham, I, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, Linda S. Wendtland, Esquire, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Director, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   AMENDED MEMORANDUM

Jose Antonio Meza-Castillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1159, 1163 (9th Cir.2006), and we grant the petition for review.

The agency’s decisions preceded our determination in United States v. Vidal, 504 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc), that a conviction under Cal. Vehicle Code § 10851(a) is not categorically an aggravated felony. See id. at 1086. Moreover, the record of conviction in this case does not establish the factual predicate for Meza-Castillo’s plea. See Penuliar v. Mu-kasey, 528 F.3d 603, 612-14 (9th Cir.2008). Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See Ruiz-Vidal v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir.2007).

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.
     