Jose Ruiz-Vidal v. Loretta E. Lynch, 789 F.3d 1065

Background

Ruiz-Vidal, a lawful permanent resident since 1976, was charged in California with sale and possession for sale of a controlled substance (count identified as methamphetamine) under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11379(a).
He pleaded no contest to the lesser included offense of simple possession under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11377(a); sentenced to time served and five years’ probation.
DHS served a Notice to Appear; an IJ and the BIA found Ruiz-Vidal removable as having been convicted of a controlled-substance aggravated felony (methamphetamine) under federal law.
The Ninth Circuit panel applied the modified categorical approach because § 11377(a) is divisible and reviewed permitted documents (plea colloquy, charging information, minute order).
The majority concluded the plea referenced Count 1 (which specified methamphetamine) and that a possession conviction necessarily included possession of methamphetamine given the charge; thus clear and convincing evidence supported removability.
Judge Reinhardt dissented, arguing the record does not clearly show Ruiz-Vidal was convicted of possessing methamphetamine and that the majority creates an unwarranted exception to precedent protecting plea certainty (United States v. Vidal).

Issues

Issue	Ruiz-Vidal's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether a no-contest plea to a lesser included offense under a divisible California statute can be tied to a specific drug named in the charging count for removal purposes	Plea to §11377(a) did not identify the drug; thus record doesn’t show conviction was for methamphetamine	Plea referenced the lesser included to Count 1 (which specified methamphetamine); minute order and colloquy connect plea to that count	Held: Yes — documents show plea was to Count 1 (which alleged methamphetamine), so conviction is for methamphetamine and is a removable aggravated felony
Whether courts may consult plea colloquy and minute order under the modified categorical approach to identify the specific controlled substance	Records lack explicit drug admission in colloquy; such documents cannot substitute for an explicit conviction-as-charged statement	Permitted records under Descamps/Leal-Vega include plea colloquy and minute order; these link the plea to the methamphetamine count	Held: Yes — plea colloquy and minute order are in the limited class of documents and provide clear and convincing evidence
Whether a conviction for a lesser included offense need be explicitly labeled "as charged in the Information" to rely on the Information’s allegations	Vidal requires explicit ‘‘as charged in the Information’’ or clear plea to a specific count; otherwise the Information cannot be used	Where plea expressly references a specific count (even as a lesser included), the charging document’s specified drug can be considered	Held: Majority rejects Vidal limitation in this circumstance — the record here goes beyond indictment+judgment and supports reliance on the Information; dissent disagrees
Whether adopting this rule undermines defendants’ ability to rely on circuit precedent about immigration consequences of pleas	Argues reliance on Vidal and earlier Ruiz-Vidal decision meant plea avoided removal; changing rule is retroactive consequence-altering	Government emphasizes evidentiary sufficiency and established modified categorical authorities allow this inquiry	Held: Majority applies evidentiary rule despite dissent’s concern about altering settled expectations; dissent would deny removal and preserve Vidal’s rule

Key Cases Cited

Ayala-Villanueva v. Holder, 572 F.3d 736 (9th Cir. 2009) (aggravated felony removability standard for controlled-substance convictions)
Cabantac v. Holder, 736 F.3d 787 (9th Cir. 2013) (standard of review and use of limited documents under modified categorical approach)
Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (U.S. 2013) (limits documents courts may consult when a statute is divisible; modified categorical approach)
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (categorical approach—compare state elements to federal definition)
Coronado v. Holder, 747 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2014) (Cal. § 11377(a) is divisible and some alternatives are not federal offenses)
Ruiz-Vidal v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2007) (prior Ninth Circuit decision involving the same petitioner and similar issues)
United States v. Leal-Vega, 680 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2012) (minute order and specific-count plea can connect conviction to charging document’s facts)
United States v. Vidal, 504 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2007) (requirement that judgment state conviction "as charged in the Information" when record lacks other memorialization)
Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563 (2010) (focus on the conviction itself when determining immigration consequences)