In reaching this conclusion Noonan explicitly disagreed with the BIA’s holding in Matter of Kinney that an intent to have someone rely on a false statement is not necessary enough to constitute a CIMT because “one who intends that there be reliance upon his false statement may nevertheless also intend to pay for the goods he is attempting to obtain.” Tijani, No. 05-70195, slip op. at 4076 (quoting Matter of Kinney, 10 I&N Dec. 548 (1964) (concerning a Connecticut statute)).Despite having concluded that credit card fraud under Cal. Penal Code § 532a(1) categorically constitutes a CIMT, Noonan nonetheless analyzed the conviction under a modified categorical approach. Tijani, No. 05-70195, slip op. at 4077.