*1 Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Jose Luis Corrales-Navarro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision finding him removable. We have *2 jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Whether a crime is as an aggravated felony is a question of law subject to de novo review. Jauregui-Cardenas v. Barr , 946 F.3d 1116, 1118 (9th Cir. 2020). We grant the petition for review and remand.

Corrales-Navarro was charged with removability based on his conviction for hindering prosecution under Arizona Revised Statutes (“ARS”) § 13-2512. The agency sustained the charge of having been convicted of an aggravated felony offense relating to obstruction of justice. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(S). However, ARS § 13-2512 is the “ statutory embodiment ” of the common-law offense of being an accessory after the fact and does not require an ongoing proceeding, see State v. Johnson , 156 P.3d 445, 451 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007) (ARS § 13-2512 is “ the statutory embodiment of the distinct, independent, common-law offense of being an accessory after the fact. ” (internal quotation marks omitted)), and as a result the sole charge of removability against Corrales-Navarro cannot be sustained, see Valenzuela Gallardo v. Barr , 968 F.3d 1053, 1069 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding California Penal Code § 32, accessory after the fact, is not a categorical match to the generic offense of obstruction of justice because it “ encompasses interference with proceedings or investigations that are not pending or ongoing. ”).

We remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this order. Andia v. Ashcroft , 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004) (“In reviewing the *3 decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency. If we conclude that th e BIA’s decision cannot be sustained upon its reasoning, we must remand to allow the agency to decide any issues remaining in the case.”).

Corrales- Navarro’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).