Barron v. Bondi, 23-2400

Jaime Ugalde Barron, a Mexican citizen, was served with a Notice of Intent to Issue a Final Administrative Removal Order (NOI) and a Final Administrative Removal Order (FARO) on the same day in 2023, based on a 1998 conviction for possession with intent to sell methamphetamine under California law.
The Department of Homeland Security alleged Ugalde’s conviction qualified as an aggravated felony under immigration statutes, triggering expedited removal.
Ugalde was not afforded the 10-day response period required by 8 C.F.R. § 238.1(c)(1) before the FARO was issued.
Ugalde challenged the expedited process, arguing it deprived him of due process to contest whether his conviction was actually an aggravated felony under federal law, especially considering the broader definition of "controlled substance" under California law compared to federal law.
The Ninth Circuit considered whether this regulatory violation prejudiced Ugalde’s defense, which could impact the outcome of the removal order. Ugalde’s underlying state conviction was vacated during the pendency of the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Ugalde deprived of due process by receiving the FARO the same day as the NOI?	Lack of 10-day response denied due process	No prejudice as outcome would be the same	Yes; process violation potentially prejudiced defense; remand
Whether Ugalde’s California conviction is categorically an aggravated felony under federal law	California statute is broader than federal law; not categorically a match	Conviction for methamphetamine under CA statute is categorically a match	Ugalde had a potentially meritorious argument; agency to consider on remand
Effect of vacatur of state conviction on removal order	Conviction vacated undermines removal basis	Not directly addressed in government’s argument	Remand for agency to consider effect of conviction’s vacatur
Was Ugalde prejudiced by regulatory violation?	Yes; could have made a meritorious argument	No; conviction fits federal aggravated felony definition	Yes; violation could have affected outcome.

Gomez-Velazco v. Sessions, 879 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2018) (Prejudice from procedural violation shown if the outcome could have been affected)
Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016) (Categorical and modified categorical approach to statutory interpretation)
United States v. Ocampo-Estrada, 873 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2017) (Divisibility of California Health & Safety Code § 11378)
Singh v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2004) (Effect of vacated conviction on immigration proceedings)