Noe Medina-Rodriguez v. William Barr
979 F.3d 738
| 9th Cir. | 2020Background
- Petitioner Noe Medina-Rodriguez, a Mexican national and lawful permanent resident, pled guilty in 2011 to California Health & Safety Code § 11359 (possession for sale of marijuana) and received 180 days’ imprisonment.
- In 2018 DHS charged him with removability as an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and 1101(a)(43)(B), which incorporate federal controlled-substance definitions.
- Medina-Rodriguez argued § 11359 is not a categorical match to the federal narcotics offense because (1) § 11359 allegedly reaches broader conduct and (2) California’s 2011 definition of marijuana differs from the federal schedule in effect at removal.
- The IJ and the BIA concluded § 11359 is a categorical match (relying on Roman-Suaste), rejected the argument that the federal schedule should be measured at time of removal, and denied CAT relief.
- On CAT, petitioner claimed risk of torture in Mexico due to physical disability and tattoos; IJ/BIA found the evidence insufficient under the “more likely than not” standard.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed: it held the correct comparison uses the state and federal drug definitions in effect at the time of conviction, found the definitions aligned in 2011, and upheld denial of CAT relief.
Issues
| Issue | Medina-Rodriguez's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cal. § 11359 is a categorical match to the generic federal drug offense | § 11359 can reach conduct outside the federal felony (e.g., small non-remunerative amounts) | § 11359 necessarily involves sale/remuneration and therefore matches the federal offense | Held: § 11359 is a categorical match (Roman-Suaste controls) |
| Timing for comparing state and federal drug definitions for categorical analysis | Compare state definition at conviction to federal schedule as of removal | Compare state definition at conviction to federal schedule as of conviction | Held: Compare schedules as of the time of conviction (time-of-conviction rule) |
| Whether petitioner is eligible for deferral of removal under the CAT | More likely than not to be tortured in Mexico due to disability and Santa Muerte / marijuana-related tattoos | Evidence does not show torture is more likely than not or that government will acquiesce | Held: CAT relief denied; BIA had substantial evidence to reject the claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Roman-Suaste v. Holder, 766 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2014) (held Cal. § 11359 is a categorical match to federal marijuana trafficking)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013) (describes categorical approach and significance of remuneration exception)
- Mellouli v. Lynch, 575 U.S. 798 (2015) (requires linking state drug conviction to substances defined in federal schedule)
- Doe v. Sessions, 886 F.3d 203 (2d Cir. 2018) (adopts time-of-conviction rule for federal drug-schedule comparison)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (framework for categorical approach)
- Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007) (on realistic probability standard for categorical mismatch)
- Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683 (2020) (BIA factual findings on CAT reviewed for substantial evidence)