Vasquez-Calix v. Blanche

── Vasquez-Calix v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 29, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 29 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUNIOR NOEL VASQUEZ-CALIX, No. 24-1364 Agency No. Petitioner, A095-800-372 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 20, 2026 San Francisco, California Before: S.R. THOMAS, CHRISTEN, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Junior Vasquez-Calix, a lawful permanent resident of the United States and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) summary dismissal of his appeal from the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. See Jauregui-Cardenas v. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Barr, 946 F.3d 1116, 1118 (9th Cir. 2020). In light of our decision in United States v. Gomez, 165 F.4th 1199 (9th Cir. 2026) (en banc), Vasquez 1 is no longer removable. His removability was solely premised on his prior criminal conviction that after Gomez is no longer properly considered an aggravated felony. See id. at 1210. We grant the petition, vacate the order of removal, and remand to the BIA with instructions to terminate proceedings. When an immigration case turns on an issue that the agency did not have an opportunity to pass on, “the proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand to the agency for additional investigation or explanation.” INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002) (per curiam) (quotation omitted). However, we have articulated four indicators that suggest remand for the agency to address an issue “is inappropriate.” Medina-Lara v. Holder, 771 F.3d 1106, 1118 (9th Cir. 2014). They are: (1) whether “purely legal issues remain”; (2) whether the record is complete; (3) whether the agency has already addressed the dispositive issue; and (4) whether the Government is precluded from relitigating the conclusive issue. Id. Applying this framework here, we conclude that remand for the BIA to apply Gomez is unnecessary. First, as in Medina-Lara, whether an offense can serve as a predicate for removal is a legal question. See id.; see also Kwong v. Holder, 671 F.3d 872, 876 1 Petitioner’s briefs refer to Petitioner as Vasquez. We do as well. 2 24-1364 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Whether an offense is an aggravated felony for removal purposes is a question of law.” (citation modified)). And the agency “has no special expertise . . . in construing state or federal criminal statutes.” Marmolejo-Campos v. Holder, 558 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Second, and relatedly, no record development is needed here. All parties agree that Vasquez was convicted under California Penal Code § 245(a)(1), and that this conviction was the sole basis for removal. In other words, “the evidence in the record either supports the finding of removability or it does not.” Ruiz-Vidal v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1072, 1080 (9th Cir. 2007), abrogated on other grounds by Kwong, 671 F.3d 872. No additional fact finding is needed. The other indicators are absent. The agency has yet to have the opportunity