Anh Le v. Loretta Lynch
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 3159
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Anh Le, a Canadian refugee who entered the U.S. on a visitor visa, applied for adjustment to LPR status in 2010 based on his U.S. citizen wife's petition. DHS challenged his admissibility due to a 1991 Canadian conviction for narcotics possession.
- Le testified he did not possess or use drugs and had limited English at the time of his 1991 arrest; he produced Canadian pardon documentation for the 1991 and 1998 offenses.
- Government submitted multiple records (inspection worksheet, RCMP fingerprint/conviction record, INS inspector note) showing a conviction and fine for possession of cocaine.
- IJ Walton found Le failed to carry his burden under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(A) and 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d) to show the conviction did not relate to a federally controlled substance; the IJ found Le’s testimony insufficient to overcome documentary evidence.
- The BIA affirmed de novo, rejecting that the Canadian pardon erased the conviction for immigration purposes and noting Le failed to obtain additional records (e.g., from RCMP) that could have resolved ambiguities. Le’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
- The Fifth Circuit denied Le’s petition for review, holding the burden remained on Le, the record supported the finding that his conviction related to a controlled substance, and the Canadian pardon did not negate immigration consequences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who bears the burden to prove eligibility for relief when a prior conviction is ambiguous? | Le: statutory/legal question; burden should be on Government to resolve ambiguity (citing Moncrieffe/Descamps). | Gov: 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(A) and regs place burden on alien to prove eligibility; ambiguity does not shift burden. | Held: Burden remains on Le to prove eligibility for relief; he must resolve ambiguities. |
| Whether the record shows a conviction "relating to a controlled substance" so as to bar adjustment | Le: he consistently denied drug involvement; record ambiguous; he cannot reasonably obtain further records, so ambiguity should favor him. | Gov: multiple government documents and Le’s own pardon documents support a drug-possession conviction; Le failed to identify statute or produce exculpatory records. | Held: Substantial evidence supports that Le did not meet his burden; conviction sufficiently related to a federally controlled substance (cocaine). |
| Effect of Canadian pardon on immigration inadmissibility | Le: Canadian pardon and NPC letters mitigate or erase conviction for purposes of relief. | Gov: foreign pardons/expungements are generally not recognized under U.S. immigration law; conviction remains for immigration purposes. | Held: Canadian pardon does not eliminate immigration consequences; BIA correctly gave it no dispositive effect. |
| Denial of motion for reconsideration | Le: additional arguments/evidence warranted reconsideration. | Gov: record still shows disqualifying conviction; no error in BIA decision. | Held: BIA did not abuse discretion in denying reconsideration; denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013) (discussing categorical approach and treatment of ambiguous prior convictions)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (limits use of modified categorical approach for divisible statutes)
- Mellouli v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 1980 (2015) (a conviction "relating to" a controlled substance requires a link to a drug listed in federal schedules)
- Vasquez-Martinez v. Holder, 564 F.3d 712 (5th Cir. 2009) (applicant bears burden to show eligibility for discretionary relief)
- Peters v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 302 (5th Cir. 2004) (discusses when an offense "relates to" a controlled substance in removal context)