Coronado v. Holder
759 F.3d 977
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Coronado, a lawful permanent resident, pleaded guilty twice (2006, 2010) to California Health & Safety Code § 11377(a) for possession of methamphetamine; DHS charged him as inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II).
- IJ found him inadmissible and denied cancellation of removal; BIA affirmed both the inadmissibility finding and denial of relief but did not address Coronado’s constitutional due-process claims.
- Coronado contended the charging papers alone could not prove the controlled substance was one listed in the federal CSA; parties disputed whether § 11377(a) is divisible, implicating the modified categorical approach after Descamps.
- The government introduced certified state-court records (electronic docket and court minutes) plus criminal complaints to show Coronado pleaded to methamphetamine possession.
- The Ninth Circuit held § 11377(a) is divisible, applied the modified categorical approach, concluded the government proved two convictions for methamphetamine possession, and therefore affirmed inadmissibility.
- The court remanded to the BIA to consider Coronado’s exhausted due-process claims (ineffective assistance of counsel and IJ bias) and dismissed his unexhausted equal-protection argument for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 11377(a) is divisible for Descamps/modified categorical analysis | Coronado: statute may be indivisible; alternative language could be mere means | Government: statute lists alternative substances/elements and is divisible | Court: § 11377(a) is divisible; modified categorical approach applies |
| Whether charging documents submitted proved the specific controlled substance (methamphetamine) | Coronado: charging papers alone insufficient to prove federally controlled substance | Government: Shepard-authorized judicial records (docket/minutes + complaint) are equally reliable to prove plea to methamphetamine | Court: electronic docket and minutes are equally reliable; complaints + those records show guilty pleas to methamphetamine |
| Whether BIA erred by not addressing Coronado’s due-process claims (ineffective assistance and IJ bias) | Coronado: raised claims in pro se BIA brief; BIA ignored them | Government: contended ineffective-assistance claim unexhausted; argued discretionary denial of relief foreclosed review | Court: BIA must consider these claims first; remanded for BIA to decide them in the first instance |
| Whether denial of cancellation violated equal protection | Coronado: detained aliens cannot establish rehabilitation like non-detained aliens; denial was discriminatory | Government: BIA weighed discretionary factors including rehabilitation history and detention sobriety | Court: Claim not a colorable constitutional question—actually an abuse-of-discretion challenge; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (modified categorical approach applies only to divisible statutes listing alternatives)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limits documents courts may consult in modified categorical inquiry; allows plea colloquies and comparable records)
- United States v. Snellenberger, 548 F.3d 699 (9th Cir. 2008) (state court minute orders and similar records may be "equally reliable" for Shepard purposes)
- Cabantac v. Holder, 736 F.3d 787 (9th Cir. 2013) (court may consider facts alleged in charging document when minute order specifies guilty plea to a particular count)
- Ruiz-Vidal v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2007) (comparison of California schedules to federal CSA for removability analysis)