Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182

Pagayon, a native of the Philippines and former U.S. permanent resident, faced removal proceedings based on California convictions for possession of a firearm by a felon and for possession of a controlled substance.
An IJ summarized the abstract of judgment and the informations, and Pagayon admitted the convictions at first, triggering removability.
Pagayon later pursued a citizenship claim through his maternal grandmother, and a successor IJ allowed him to withdraw his admission of removability based on that claim.
At a later hearing, Pagayon testified about the NP's alleged involvement in his father’s murder and the threats his family faced, aiming to support a relief claim, and the IJ found credibility despite not making a formal adverse credibility ruling for purposes of this appeal.
The IJ sustained removability based on the drug conviction and denied relief, including asylum and withholding, and rejected CAT relief on the merits.
The Board summarily affirmed the IJ, and Pagayon petitioned for review and sought reconsideration/remand, raising issues about the nature of his convictions, the correct legal standards for particularly serious crime, due process, and CAT law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the drug conviction qualify as a federal controlled-substance offense?	Pagayon contends the abstract alone does not prove a controlled-substance conviction.	The government contends the underlying record, with admission corroboration, establishes a controlled-substance offense under the modified categorical approach.	Yes, the government met the showing; the record, including the conviction documents and admission, establishes a controlled-substance offense.
Is Pagayon entitled to relief from removal (asylum/withholding) given the convictions?	Pagayon argues he should be eligible for relief based on past persecution or well-founded fear, notwithstanding removability.	The government argues the convictions bar asylum/withholding and that the NP persecution claim is not established on a protected ground.	Pagayon failed to prove entitlement to relief; persecution was not shown on a protected ground, and with respect to asylum, relief was not shown due to the lack of a qualifying basis.
Did the IJ violate Pagayon's due-process rights in a way that prejudiced the outcome?	Pagayon claims the IJ mishandled timing for submission of testimony and refused telephonic testimony.	The government asserts any errors, if present, did not deprive Pagayon of a full and fair hearing.	No due-process prejudice; the record does not show a connection between the additional evidence and a different outcome.

Tokatly v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 613 (9th Cir.2004) (limits consideration to a narrow record of conviction for status determinations)
Cheuk Fung S-Yong v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir.2010) (admissions alone cannot prove removability without corroborating conviction documents)
Barragan-Lopez v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 899 (9th Cir.2007) (reliance on admissions must be corroborated by reliable conviction documents)
Ruiz-Vidal v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir.2007) (not every state-law drug conviction equals a federal controlled-substance offense)
Malilia v. Holder, 632 F.3d 598 (9th Cir.2011) (documentary records define the underlying conviction for legal classification)
Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) (well-founded fear standard for asylum inquiry)