Crisanto Ragasa v. Eric Holder, Jr., 752 F.3d 1173

Ragasa was born in the Philippines in 1966 to his biological parents, both Filipino citizens.
He immigrated to the United States at age fourteen and was adopted by his uncle and aunt, who were naturalized U.S. citizens.
In 2008 Ragasa was convicted in Hawai‘i state court of Attempted Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the First Degree.
The government charged Ragasa as a removable alien under INA § 237(a)(2)(B)(i); an IJ ordered removal and the BIA denied his cancellation appeal.
Ragasa timely challenged the BIA decision in this court, which granted the petition, concluding Ragasa is not removable and addressing citizenship.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Citizenship by adoption under INA	Ragasa contends he acquired citizenship through his adoptive parents under former § 320/301(a)(7).	HOLDER argues § 320(b) (adopted children) and § 301(a)(7) require biological parents or direct birth provenance; Ragasa cannot rely on adoptive status.	Ragasa is not a U.S. citizen by adoption or birth under the cited provisions.
Removability based on the state drug conviction	Ragasa is not removable because not all elements map to a federally controlled substance.	The government must show the state drug conviction corresponds to a CSA-controlled substance.	Not categorically removable; the statute is divisible and not proven removable under the CSA without proper record of conviction.
Application of the modified categorical approach	Because the state statute lists multiple substances, it could be a removable offense under the modified approach.	The BIA did not apply the approach, but the court should avoid remand given record limitations and non-application by government.	Court applies modified categorical approach and finds the government failed to prove removability by clear and convincing evidence; grants petition.

Minasyan v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2005) (determines law to apply based on events at eligibility time)
Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc., 710 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2013) (statutory construction avoids superfluity)
Ragasa v. Holder, no official reporter citation in text (9th Cir. 2014) (primary decision here; (placeholder, not cited in this format) omit if not an official reporter citation)
Solis-Espinoza v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2005) (citations related to citizenship through adoption or birth)
Scales v. INS, 232 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2000) (cites limitations on citizenship through post-birth events)
Martinez-Madera v. Holder, 559 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 2009) (distinguishes Scales and related adoption scenarios)
Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (U.S. 2013) (upholds modified categorical approach for divisible statutes)
Tokatly v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 613 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard for evidentiary burden in removability)
Mielewczyk v. Holder, 575 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2009) (framework for determining removability under § 237(a)(2)(B)(i))
Ruiz-Vidal v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2007) (ties CSA substances to removability under the INA)
Kwong v. Holder, 671 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2011) (addressed abrogation and framework after Taylor line of cases)