9th Cir.;
11-72422

The court of appeals granted a petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals and remanded. The court held that the Board erred in failing to exercise its “expertise and discretion” in interpreting the ambiguous statutory definition of a deportable offense.

Jose Lozano-Arredondo entered the United States in August 1990 without being admitted. He was convicted of petit theft in Idaho in 1997. In 2005, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, and Lozano-Arredondo applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. §1229b(b). In 2007, an immigration judge (IJ) found Lozano-Arredondo ineligible for cancellation of removal. The Board dismissed Lozano-Arredondo's appeal, concluding his petit theft conviction was a deportable “offense under” §1227(a)(2)(A)(i), because it was a crime involving moral turpitude for which a sentence of one year could be imposed.