Pedro Madrigal-Barcenas v. Eric Holder, Jr.
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13950
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Pedro Madrigal-Barcenas, a Mexican national, was convicted in Nevada of misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 453.566 and applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b).
- The BIA denied cancellation, finding the conviction rendered him inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) because it was for an offense “relating to a controlled substance.”
- The BIA relied on In re Martinez-Espinoza and this court’s prior precedents treating paraphernalia convictions as categorically related to controlled substances.
- The Ninth Circuit initially denied review consistent with that precedent, but the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated, and remanded after issuing Mellouli v. Lynch.
- On remand, the Ninth Circuit analyzed Mellouli, concluded Nevada’s paraphernalia statute is overbroad because it reaches substances not controlled under the federal Controlled Substances Act, and held Madrigal-Barcenas’s conviction is not categorically a controlled-substance offense.
- The court granted the petition and remanded to the agency to consider the modified categorical approach and the merits of cancellation of removal in the first instance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Madrigal-Barcenas’s Nevada paraphernalia misdemeanor is categorically a conviction "relating to a controlled substance" under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) | Madrigal-Barcenas: Nevada statute penalizes paraphernalia for substances not on the federal list, so the conviction is not categorically for a federal controlled-substance offense | Government: Nevada paraphernalia offense is sufficiently tied to the drug trade and should be treated as relating to controlled substances (relying on pre-Mellouli precedent) | The court held the conviction is not categorically for a federal controlled-substance offense because Nevada’s statute covers substances outside the federal list; petition granted and remanded for further agency consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Mellouli v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 1980 (2015) (state paraphernalia conviction must be tied to substances listed in federal Controlled Substances Act to trigger immigration removal/admissibility)
- Luu-Le v. INS, 224 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 2000) (prior Ninth Circuit precedent treating paraphernalia convictions as relating to controlled substances)
- Oseguera-Madrigal v. Holder, 700 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2012) (Ninth Circuit precedent addressing controlled-substance-related immigration consequences)
- Bermudez v. Holder, 586 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (pre-Mellouli precedent on drug-related convictions)
- Estrada v. Holder, 560 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2009) (pre-Mellouli precedent on criminal convictions and immigration consequences)
- INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (2002) (remand to agency is proper for additional findings)
- Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (later controlling authority overrules inconsistent prior circuit precedent)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (1985) (remand to agency for additional explanation or investigation)