Barma v. Holder, 640 F.3d 749

Barma, a Canadian visitor, overstayed his six-month authorization and lived in the United States for a large part of his life.
He was convicted in Wisconsin state courts of multiple offenses: drug paraphernalia (1994); criminal damage to property (1996 and 2007); lewd and lascivious behavior-exposure and theft (2008).
DHS issued a Notice to Appear in 2009 charging Barma with removal on three grounds: unlawful presence, two or more crimes involving moral turpitude, and a controlled-substance offense (excluding simple possession under 30 g).
The IJ found Barma removable on unlawful presence and the controlled-substance offense, but not on moral turpitude grounds; Barma sought cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).
The BIA affirmed removal denial, relying on Barma’s paraphernalia conviction as an offense under § 1182(a)(2); Barma challenged the eligibility for cancellation of removal, focusing on whether the waiver in § 1182(h) could remove the paraphernalia conviction from § 1182(a)(2).
The Seventh Circuit held that cancellation of removal is barred by the plain language of § 1229b(b)(1)(C), which incorporates § 1182(a)(2) offenses, including drug-paraphernalia violations, and rejected applying § 1182(h) waiver to cancel removal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does paraphernalia conviction bar cancellation under § 1229b(b)(1)(C)?	Barma: paraphernalia conviction relates to controlled substances; should not bar cancellation.	Respondent: paraphernalia conviction falls within § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii) as relating to a controlled substance and thus disqualifies Barma from cancellation.	Yes; paraphernalia conviction bars cancellation under § 1229b(b)(1)(C).
Can § 1182(h) waiver apply to Barma’s case to avoid § 1182(a)(2) bar of cancellation?	Barma seeks § 1182(h) waiver as to a single simple-possession offense to rescue cancellation.	Respondent: § 1229b references § 1182(a)(2) only; § 1182(h) waiver does not apply to cancellation.	No; § 1182(h) waiver is not incorporated into cancellation of removal; phrasing is plain and bars Barma.

Escobar Barraza v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 388 (7th Cir. 2008) (paraphernalia-related conduct linked to drug quantities under 30 g)
Juarez v. Holder, 599 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. 2010) (review framework: BIA decision supplemented by IJ for removal appeal)
Matter of Garcia-Hernandez, 23 I. & N. Dec. 590 (BIA 2003) (petty-offense exception within § 1182(a)(2) does not mirror § 1182(h) waiver)
Zamora-Rios v. Gonzales, 242 Fed.Appx. 394 (9th Cir. 2007) (unpublished; cautions against importing inadmissibility waivers into removal context)
Sanchez v. Holder, 560 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc: inadmissibility waiver does not apply to cancellation of removal)
Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 649 (9th Cir. 2004) (plain-language reading; reference to specific subsection rather than entire statute)