1 114 098 conviction evidently emains undistubed as he has ye o indicate tha he has received a vacatur. hus, his convicion is vald the pupose of these removal poceedings. Howeve, he esponent also agues on appeal that the epment of Homeland ecuity did not meet its buden to esablish hat is 01 conviction is a cime involving mo tuie
es. rief at 6 e Imigration Jdge denied e responents motion to teminate poceeings, nding that he was convicted ude secton 01 of he Teas Penal Code r intentionly and kowingy causing boily injuy to a fmily member.
Immigtion Judge's June 1, 013, Orde on otion at . Upon eview of e ecod we n emand is wned as ee is insufcient ct-nding to alow us to eview he emovability detemination Contay to the Immigration Judge's statement, the respondent's oder of deed adjudication identies he oense r which he was convicted ony as "Assaut-Fily eme We note hat neither the complaint, the inmaion, nor e orde o dered adjdication identies te secio o la nde ich the responden was convicted In detemining wheher a cime involves moral tupiude, the s sep in the analysis is o look to he saute of conviction o deemine hethe the cime caegoicay involves moa tpitde.
690 F3d 691, 69-95 5th Ci 0
. s the ecord does not esalish de which statute the esondent was convcted, e nd remand necessay he ct nding dditionally, e note hat the Immigration Judge appeas o have elied on the nation included in he espondes ecod of convicion in maing his determination. Given recen upeme Cou and Fih Cicui decisions raising questions about the application of the caegorical nalysis vesus the modied categoica analysis, we nd a more thoough iculation of the Iigraion Judge's detemination hat the respondent is ared om relief is necessay on emand.
ee geealy Descamp v Holde
133 . Ct. 6 013;
4 F3d 19 (5th Cir 014 Unde he cicustces, we n it approriate to ed he ct-nding nd a moe clear statement of e basis of e Imigaion Judge's decision regading the esponden's removabiity and eigibility eief om removal
Accodingly, the llowing ode will be eneed O he ecord is emanded o he Immigration dge r e poceedings consistent ih he egoing opinion ad r e entry o a new decision.
he respondent aso ses hat the Imigration Juge eed in nding that his �icin i
an agavated felony IJ at 3 We note tha the Immigation Judge' ecisio des
speci nde which section of te aggavated ony denition she made hs dtermn tin, a does contain any aalysis regardig this issue We agree with the resp n h he is no suppo an aggavated lony nding
Cite as: Stanley Anozie Obi, A210 114 098 (BIA June 9, 2014)