26 I. & N. Dec. 408
BIA2014Background
- Respondent (Cuban national, LPR) convicted in Nevada of possession of more than 1 ounce of marijuana (Nev. Rev. Stat. § 453.336), a category E felony; sentence suspended, probation imposed.
- DHS charged respondent as removable under INA § 237(a)(2)(B)(i) for a controlled-substance conviction "other than a single offense involving possession for one’s own use of thirty grams or less of marijuana."
- Immigration Judge (IJ), relying on Moncrieffe v. Holder, concluded the categorical/modified-categorical approach barred inquiry into the specific quantity possessed and terminated proceedings.
- DHS appealed, arguing Matter of Davey requires a circumstance-specific inquiry into whether the underlying conduct falls within the 30-gram personal-use exception.
- BIA solicited amicus briefs to address whether Moncrieffe undermines Matter of Davey and whether a facts-based inquiry is permissible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHS) | Defendant's Argument (Dominguez-Rodriguez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 30-gram personal-use exception in INA § 237(a)(2)(B)(i) requires a circumstance-specific inquiry (factfinding about the underlying conduct) or a categorical/modified-categorical inquiry limited to the record of conviction | Matter of Davey: statute’s narrow, fact-specific language contemplates a circumstance-specific inquiry; DHS may prove actual quantity by clear and convincing evidence | Moncrieffe (as read by IJ): categorical approach (and Shepard limits) prohibits looking beyond the record of conviction to determine if the exception applies; terminate if record doesn’t show >30 grams | The BIA reaffirmed Matter of Davey: Moncrieffe does not displace a circumstance-specific inquiry; DHS may introduce reliable, probative evidence to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the offense falls outside the exception; remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (Court held the categorical approach applied where the removal ground referenced a generic crime incorporated from a criminal statute)
- Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (circumstance-specific inquiry allowed for monetary-threshold issue; categorical approach not always appropriate)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (limits on what documents the modified categorical approach may consider)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (agency deference framework)
- Popescu-Mateffy v. Holder, 678 F.3d 612 (8th Cir.) (deference to Board’s circumstance-specific reading of a statutory exception)
- Rojas v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 728 F.3d 203 (3d Cir.) (categorical approach inapplicable to determining whether offense "relates to a controlled substance")
- Mellouli v. Holder, 719 F.3d 995 (8th Cir.) (distinguishing Moncrieffe; agreeing with circumstance-specific approach)
- Varughese v. Holder, 629 F.3d 272 (2d Cir.) (categorical approach inapplicable to certain fact-specific thresholds)
- Bianco v. Holder, 624 F.3d 265 (5th Cir.) (circumstance-specific inquiry for categorical exceptions)