900 F.3d 823
6th Cir.2018Background
- Shahzad Raja, a Pakistani national, pleaded guilty in Pennsylvania (1996) to possession with intent to deliver under 35 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 780-113(a)(30) for ~32.5 oz. of marijuana; sentenced to imprisonment and probation.
- Raja later obtained LPR status (1998); upon return from Pakistan in 2007, immigration officials discovered his 1996 conviction and initiated removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) (controlled-substance conviction).
- The IJ found Raja removable, denied an inadmissibility waiver, and distinguished Moncrieffe; the BIA affirmed that the Pennsylvania statute is divisible and that Raja’s record of conviction showed marijuana.
- Raja appealed to the Sixth Circuit, arguing the Pennsylvania statute is not divisible (so categorical approach required) and invoking Aponte and Moncrieffe.
- The central legal question became whether § 780-113(a)(30) is divisible (allowing the modified-categorical approach) so that Raja’s plea charging marijuana matches the federal CSA schedule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Pennsylvania statute § 780-113(a)(30) is divisible | Raja: statute lists substances as means, not separate elements; Aponte suggests substance type is not an element | Gov./BIA: statute is divisible; each controlled substance is a distinct element permitting modified-categorical inquiry | Court: statute is divisible; apply modified-categorical approach |
| Whether Raja’s record of conviction shows a federal CSA match | Raja: record/charging documents insufficient or statute mismatch precludes removal | Gov./BIA: charging complaint specifies marijuana (a federally listed substance), so categorical match exists | Court: charging document alleges marijuana; removal under § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) is proper |
| Whether Moncrieffe/Mellouli bar removal here | Raja: Moncrieffe/Mellouli limit use of record where statute overbroad | Gov./BIA: modified-categorical approach allowed because statute is divisible | Court: Moncrieffe/Mellouli inapplicable to bar removal once statute is divisible; BIA/IJ correctly distinguished those precedents |
| Whether Aponte undermines divisibility | Raja: Aponte (sentencing context) implies substance type is not an element | Gov./BIA: Aponte addresses sentencing enhancements and is not controlling on elements question; Swavely controls | Court: Aponte inapposite; Swavely and Third Circuit precedent show substance is an element |
Key Cases Cited
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (modified-categorical approach may be used when state statute is divisible)
- Mellouli v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 1980 (categorical approach applies to controlled-substance removability)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (distinguishing elements from means; guidance on divisibility inquiry)
- United States v. Henderson, 841 F.3d 623 (3d Cir.) (construing § 780-113(a)(30) as divisible)
- Commonwealth v. Swavely, 554 A.2d 946 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1989) (holding different controlled substances are distinct elements for double jeopardy analysis)