Raul Quijada Coronado v. Eric Holder, Jr.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4896
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Raul Quijada Coronado, a lawful permanent resident, pleaded guilty in state court to possession under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11377(a) in 2006 and again in 2010; DHS charged him inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) based on those convictions.
- The IJ found him inadmissible as convicted of possessing a substance listed in the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and denied cancellation of removal; the BIA affirmed both rulings.
- Coronado disputed that the charging papers alone proved the convictions were for a CSA-listed substance and later argued § 11377(a) is indivisible; the government asserted § 11377(a) is divisible and the modified categorical approach applies.
- The Ninth Circuit held § 11377(a) is divisible and allowed use of the modified categorical approach, finding reliable state records established Coronado pleaded to possession of methamphetamine (a CSA-listed drug).
- The court remanded because the BIA did not address Coronado’s exhausted due-process claims (ineffective assistance of counsel and IJ bias), but dismissed his unexhausted equal protection claim for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11377(a) is divisible such that the modified categorical approach applies | Coronado: § 11377(a) is not necessarily divisible; listing could be alternative means, not separate elements | Government: § 11377(a) lists alternative elements (different controlled substances) and is divisible | Court: § 11377(a) is divisible; modified categorical approach may be used |
| Whether government proved convictions were for a CSA-listed substance | Coronado: Charging papers alone insufficient to prove the substance was methamphetamine | Government: Certified docket and court minutes are "equally reliable" Shepard-type documents showing the complaints alleged methamphetamine | Court: Reliable records (docket/minutes + complaints) show guilty pleas to counts alleging methamphetamine; government met its burden |
| Whether the BIA erred by ignoring Coronado’s due-process claims (ineffective assistance and IJ bias) | Coronado: Raised ineffective assistance and IJ bias before the BIA; BIA should adjudicate | Government: Argues failure-to-exhaust for counsel claim; contests jurisdiction/reviewability of bias claim | Court: BIA failed to address these claims; remand for BIA to consider them in the first instance |
| Whether Coronado’s equal protection claim is reviewable here | Coronado: BIA denied cancellation without considering rehabilitation in detention, violating equal protection | Government: Claim raised only on appeal; unexhausted | Court: Equal protection claim unexhausted and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (modified categorical approach applies only to divisible statutes listing alternative elements)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limits documents courts may consult to determine offense of conviction)
- Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009) (discussion of statutes that create several different crimes via alternative elements)
- Cheuk Fung S-Yong v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2010) (application of categorical/modified categorical analysis in Ninth Circuit)
- Ruiz-Vidal v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2007) (comparison of state and federal controlled-substance coverage)
- United States v. Snellenberger, 548 F.3d 699 (9th Cir. 2008) (state clerk minute/docket entries can be "equally reliable" Shepard documents)
- Cabantac v. Holder, 736 F.3d 787 (9th Cir. 2013) (applying modified categorical approach with state records)
- INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (2002) (ordinary-remand rule; courts should not decide claims the agency has not considered)
- Montes-Lopez v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2007) (remanding when agency did not consider claim in first instance)
- Figueroa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 2008) (pro se pleadings construed liberally for exhaustion notice)
- Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674 (9th Cir. 2004) (exhaustion of administrative remedies is prerequisite to jurisdiction)