Ramiro Enrique Rojas v. Attorney General United States, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17650

Background

Ramiro Rojas, a Dominican Republic native and lawful permanent resident since 2003, pled guilty in PA state court to drug paraphernalia in 2009 and was fined.
Department of Homeland Security issued removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) based on a state-law conviction for a crime relating to a controlled substance.
Record lacking specific substance involved in the paraphernalia conviction; police complaint mentioned marijuana but was considered unreliable; plea documents did not specify the drug.
Rojas argued removability required proof that the conviction involved a federally controlled substance defined in 21 U.S.C. § 802; the government contended paraphernalia offenses 'relate to' controlled substances and did not need exact substance identification.
IJ and BIA problematic: IJ held state paraphernalia law need not align with CSA; BIA affirmed removal despite a lack of explicit federally controlled-substance involvement.
Court held that § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) requires the Department to prove the underlying substance was a federally controlled substance defined in the CSA; record failure leads to remand for further proof.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) require evidence that the substance involved is defined in the CSA?	Rojas: state paraphernalia conviction must involve a federally controlled substance.	Department: paraphernalia offenses ‘relate to’ controlled substances; strict element matching unnecessary.	Yes; requires proof of a federally controlled substance under 21 U.S.C. § 802.
Is the proper analysis the formal categorical approach, the modified categorical approach, or a ‘relating to’ analysis for paraphernalia offenses?	Rojas argues for a text-focused, direct relation to a federal substance; the matter is not a simple categorical fit.	Department urges formal categorical approach or, if inapplicable, modified categorical approach.	The formal/modified categorical approaches do not apply; the court must rely on the statute’s text, requiring a federally defined substance.
What is the correct interpretation of the parenthetical ‘as defined in section 802 of Title 21’ in § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i)?	The parenthetical restricts to substances defined federally; the record need not show the exact substance is CSA-listed.	The parenthetical is less restrictive, allowing a close fit between state schedules and the CSA.	The parenthetical is restrictive and requires a federally defined substance involved in the offense.
Can the case be remanded for the government to establish the required federally controlled-substance involvement?	Remand is unnecessary if the record cannot show CSA-listed substance; court should decide now.	Remand to allow BIA/IJ to determine if proof can be shown under the appropriate approach.	Remand to the BIA for determining whether the Department can demonstrate the requisite CSA involvement.
Do ‘relating to’ cases govern here, or does the explicit 'as defined' modifier control the outcome?	Relating to cases may be irrelevant when the 'as defined' modifier is read strictly.	The ‘relating to’ framework could support removal in broader terms.	The text controls; the ‘as defined’ modifier requires a federally defined substance.

Key Cases Cited

Ruiz-Vidal v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2007) (held that ‘as defined’ means the state conviction must involve a federally controlled substance)
Desai v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 762 (7th Cir. 2008) (recognized the restrictive reading of the ‘as defined’ parenthetical)
Borrome v. Attorney General, 687 F.3d 150 (3d Cir. 2012) (distinguished relation-to from the actual substance and rejected overbroadRelating-to reasoning)
Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (clarified the modified categorical approach as a tool within the categorical framework)
Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013) (applied the categorical approach to determine if a state offense is an aggravated felony)