Diogenes Antonio Espinal Espinal v. Loretta E. Lynch
665 F. App'x 65
2d Cir.2016Background
- Petitioner Diogenes Espinal, a Dominican national, was convicted in New York for attempted criminal possession of cocaine with intent to sell under NYPL §§ 110 and 220.16(1).
- An Immigration Judge held the conviction was an aggravated felony, making Espinal ineligible for cancellation of removal; the BIA affirmed.
- Espinal petitioned this Court for review, arguing the IJ improperly applied the categorical approach to find his NY conviction an aggravated felony under the INA.
- The government contended the New York offense categorically matches the federal definition of a drug trafficking/aggravated felony offense.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the legal question de novo and applied the categorical approach from Taylor and related precedents.
Issues
| Issue | Espinal's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NYPL §§ 110 and 220.16(1) conviction is categorically an aggravated felony | NY statute is broader because "sale" can include offers or exchanges that federal law might not punish | Federal law covers distribution, including attempted/constructive transfers, so the NY statute fits within the federal definition | Conviction is categorically an aggravated felony; petition dismissed |
| Whether Moncrieffe alters the analysis for narcotics offenses | Moncrieffe should apply to limit aggravated-felony categorization | Moncrieffe involved minimal marijuana sharing; does not apply to narcotics with intent to sell | Moncrieffe is inapplicable; claim rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (categorical approach for matching state elements to federal generic crime)
- Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47 (state drug conviction qualifies only if it proscribes conduct punishable as a federal felony)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (construing petty/non-petty distinctions for minimal marijuana sharing)
- Pascual v. Holder, 707 F.3d 403 (applying categorical approach to NY drug-sale provisions)
- Pascual v. Holder, 723 F.3d 156 (distinguishing narcotics-sale convictions from Moncrieffe)
- United States v. Savage, 542 F.3d 959 (example where a state statute criminalized conduct outside the federal definition)