Jesus Padilla-Martinez v. Eric Holder, Jr.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20658
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Padilla-Martinez, a Mexican native, entered the U.S. and later adjusted to lawful permanent resident status.
- In 2008 he was indicted in California for possession for sale of methamphetamine under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11378 and pleaded to a state plea; conviction followed a non-admission of facts under People v. West.
- Initial IJ found the state plea documents insufficient to establish removability for an aggravated felony drug trafficking offense, prompting an BIA remand.
- On remand, the government submitted an unauthenticated facsimile transcript of Padilla-Martinez’s felony change-of-plea; despite this, the IJ granted termination due to lack of certified transcript.
- The BIA later admitted the facsimile transcript, remanded again, and the IJ, on reconsideration, ordered removal based on the transcript, with the BIA affirming removal on appeal.
- Padilla-Martinez challenged the process as due process violations and argued the modified categorical approach could not be applied to his state conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA’s sua sponte remand violated due process | Padilla-Martinez argues remand gave government two bites at the apple. | Govt. contends remand is proper to develop facts and has precedent supporting open-record remands. | Remand proper; BIA allowed fact development while preserving fairness. |
| Whether the facsimile transcript was admissible without Hill declaration | Padilla-Martinez contends transcript lacks proper authentication, misusing Hill declaration. | Govt. asserts transcript is admissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(C) and common-law admissibility rules; Hill declaration not required. | Facsimile transcript admissible; Hill declaration not required for admission. |
| Whether the modified categorical approach applies to the California § 11378 conviction | Padilla-Martinez claims § 11378 is not divisible and cannot support a categorical approach. | Govt. contends § 11378 is divisible; state conviction can qualify as an aggravated felony under the modified approach. | California § 11378 is divisible; modified categorical approach applies. |
| Whether the government sought or obtained finality to permit jurisdiction to review | Padilla-Martinez questions jurisdiction over interim BIA decisions as final orders. | Govt. argues finality attaches to contingent final orders; jurisdiction exists for review of interim BIA decisions. | Court retains jurisdiction to review interim BIA decisions where final deportation depends on them. |
| Whether due process was violated by the overall sequence of proceedings | Padilla-Martinez claims the combined remands and admissibility issues deprived him of a full and fair hearing. | Govt. maintains proper procedures and admissibility rules were followed and no prejudice shown. | No due-process violation found; no prejudice established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. Holder, 683 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 2012) (BIA remand authority and open-record remands discussed)
- Fernandes v. Holder, 619 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2010) (remand to the IJ for purposes of further proceedings)
- Sinotes-Cruz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2006) (electronic conviction records authentication standards)
- Quijada Coronado v. Holder, 747 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2014) (divisibility of statutes for modified categorical approach)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (defining divisibility and elements for modified categorical approach)
- Noriega-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 2003) (definition of order of deportation and finality)
- I.N.S. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 959 (1983) (final orders and contingency in reviewability)
- Rendon v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 967 (9th Cir. 2008) (de novo review of legal questions; substantial evidence standard for facts)
- Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2011) (due process standards in deportation proceedings)
- Brezilian v. Holder, 569 F.3d 403 (9th Cir. 2009) (BIA decisions leading up to final decision reviewable)
- Junming Li v. Holder, 656 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2011) (jurisdiction to review BIA decisions and remands)
- Quintanilla-Ticas v. I.N.S., 783 F.2d 955 (9th Cir. 1986) (admissibility and handling of evidence in immigration proceedings)