Singh v. Bondi
23-3406
9th Cir.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Jaime Ugalde Barron, a Mexican citizen, was subject to removal by DHS based on a 1998 California drug conviction (Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11378) for possession of methamphetamine for sale.
- DHS issued a Notice of Intent to Issue a Final Administrative Removal Order (NOI) and a Final Administrative Removal Order (FARO) on the same day, starting expedited removal proceedings.
- Ugalde was denied the 10-day period required by regulation (8 C.F.R. § 238.1(c)(1)) to contest the NOI before receiving the removal order.
- Ugalde argued his conviction may not actually qualify as an "aggravated felony" under federal law, particularly in light of recent district court decisions.
- The Ninth Circuit granted Ugalde's petition, finding the regulatory violation could have affected the outcome. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
- Ugalde's underlying 1998 conviction had been vacated as of July 2024.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Ugalde deprived of due process by the same-day issuance of NOI and FARO? | Regulatory violation denied 10 days to respond; prejudiced ability to contest removability. | No prejudice; conviction clearly qualifies as aggravated felony. | Violation could have affected outcome; remand. |
| Does the California statute fit the federal aggravated felony definition? | Conviction under § 11378 not categorically a match; scope broader, per district courts. | Only methamphetamine at issue (not analogs); statute matches federal law. | Potentially meritorious argument; unresolved; remand. |
| Was Ugalde prejudiced by the regulatory violation? | Prejudice established if violation "potentially affected the outcome." | No prejudice, as facts and law support removal. | Prejudice shown; remand necessary. |
| Effect of vacatur of Ugalde's conviction | Vacatur undermines removal basis. | Not specifically contested. | Agency to consider on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gomez-Velazco v. Sessions, 879 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2018) (prejudice in due process violation found if it potentially affects outcome)
- United States v. Ocampo-Estrada, 873 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2017) (California drug statute is divisible; modified categorical approach applies)
- Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016) (clarifies categorical versus modified categorical approaches)
- United States v. Ceja, 23 F.4th 1218 (9th Cir. 2022) (California's definition of methamphetamine is a categorical match for federal law)
- United States v. Rodriguez-Gamboa, 972 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2020) (same holding re: categorical match for methamphetamine)