Perez-Mejia v. Holder, 2011 WL 5865888

Perez-Mejia, a Mexican native and U.S. lawful permanent resident since 2003, was convicted in 1997 of possessing cocaine for sale under California law.
DHS granted LPR status in 2003 despite the 1997 conviction, later noting it during an airport admission in 2004.
Removal proceedings began January 12, 2005 after an NTA charged removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) based on the 1997 drug conviction.
At the pleading stage, Perez-Mejia’s counsel admitted the factual allegations and conceded removability, and the IJ accepted these admissions.
The IJ and BIA treated the admissions as binding and found removability; relief sought included a § 1182(h) waiver and voluntary departure.
The BIA affirmed removability and denied relief, including § 1182(h), leading to this petition for review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admissions at pleading stage establish removability under § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II).	Perez-Mejia argues admissions cannot prove removability when a modified categorical approach is required.	HOLDER/S DHS contends admissions at pleading stage can establish removability if binding.	Removability supported by binding admissions at pleading stage.
Whether the government is estopped from removing Perez-Mejia due to DHS’s prior grant of LPR status.	Perez-Mejia asserts estoppel because DHS knew of the conviction when granting LPR status.	Government argues no estoppel due to lack of affirmative misconduct.	Government not estopped; negligence in granting LPR status does not bar removal.
Whether Perez-Mejia is eligible for a § 1182(h) waiver given his cocaine-for-sale conviction.	Argues pre-LPR conviction should affect eligibility for waiver.	BIA concluded offense was a state drug offense; waiver available only for a single simple possession of marijuana 30g or less.	Waiver denied; offense renders him ineligible under § 1182(h) as a controlled substance offense.
Whether the 1997 conviction precludes removal based on federal schedules or modified categorical approach.			Court treats admissions as binding; when applicable, the record supports removability without further evidence.

Barragan-Lopez v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2007) (admissions to NTA allegations bind when removability conceded)
Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2008) (government burden satisfied by alien's concession of removability)
Hoodho v. Holder, 558 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2009) (pleading-stage admissions binding; §1240.10(c) framework)
Roman v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2009) (admission by counsel at pleading stage binding; §1240.10(c) framework)
S-Yong v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2010) (modified categorical approach necessary when record lacks narrow conviction documents)
Tokatly v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 613 (9th Cir. 2004) (defines narrow set of record documents for modified approach)
Huerta-Guevara v. Ashcroft, 321 F.3d 883 (9th Cir. 2003) (when NTA lacks specificity, evidentiary stage needed; caution on admissions)
Selimi v. INS, 312 F.3d 854 (7th Cir. 2002) (counsel admissions may be binding; tactical admissions)
Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2008) (government burden satisfied by alien's concession)
Watkins v. United States Army, 875 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1989) (estoppel framework requires affirmative misconduct)