910 F.3d 1174
11th Cir.2018Background
- Ramon Duran Guillen, a lawful permanent resident, had multiple Florida convictions for possession of controlled substances; the relevant convictions identified cocaine.
- DHS initiated removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) for convictions "relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of title 21)".
- Guillen argued Fla. Stat. § 893.13(6)(a) is indivisible and overbroad because Florida schedules include substances not listed in the federal schedules, so his convictions could not categorically be "relating to" a federal controlled substance.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals held § 893.13(6)(a) divisible by the identity of the drug, applied the modified categorical approach, and found the conviction records unambiguously showed cocaine.
- The IJ denied cancellation of removal on discretionary grounds; the BIA affirmed both removability and the discretionary denial. Guillen petitioned for review in the Eleventh Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fla. Stat. § 893.13(6)(a) is divisible (allowing modified categorical inquiry) | Guillen: statute indivisible because it uses the generic term "controlled substance" and Florida schedules include substances outside federal schedules | Government/BIA: statute divisible; Florida law and jury instructions treat the specific drug identity as an element | Held: Statute is divisible; identity of the substance is an element under Florida law |
| Whether Guillen's convictions "relat[e] to a controlled substance" under federal law | Guillen: even if divisible, Florida schedules include non-federal substances so convictions might not involve federally controlled substances | Government: conviction records (charging documents, plea records) show cocaine, a federal Schedule II drug | Held: Records unambiguously show cocaine; convictions relate to a federal controlled substance, making Guillen removable |
| Jurisdiction to review discretionary denial of cancellation | Guillen sought review of both removability and discretionary denial | Government: courts lack jurisdiction over discretionary denials but may review legal questions | Held: Court had jurisdiction to review legal question (divisibility/removability) but not discretionary merits beyond that legal question |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (framework for distinguishing elements from means and divisibility analysis)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (限定 set of record documents usable under the modified categorical approach)
- Mellouli v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 1980 (2015) (predicate offense must have elements that relate to a federal controlled substance)
- Jenkins v. Wainwright, 322 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1975) (Florida Supreme Court treating possession of different substances as separate offenses)
- Donawa v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 735 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2013) (use of categorical/modified categorical approach in immigration removability context)