Spabo v. United States Attorney General
837 F.3d 1172
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Ilir Spaho, an Albanian lawful permanent resident, pleaded no contest in 2012 to multiple Florida drug offenses including sale of a controlled substance (Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(1)) and trafficking (§ 893.135(1)(c)(1)); sentenced to 40 months.
- DHS charged removability under two INA grounds: (1) controlled-substance conviction (§ 237(a)(2)(B)(i))—which Spaho conceded—and (2) aggravated felony (§ 237(a)(2)(A)(iii))—which he contested because that status would bar forms of relief.
- The IJ (and later the BIA) found Spaho’s conviction was an aggravated felony under the “illicit trafficking” prong of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B), making him ineligible for asylum, cancellation, and withholding (he did not challenge CAT denial).
- Central legal dispute: whether Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)(1) is divisible (so the modified categorical approach applies) or indivisible (so only the categorical approach applies), and whether the sale conviction qualifies as an “illicit trafficking” aggravated felony.
- The Eleventh Circuit panel affirmed the BIA’s decision: it held § 893.13(1)(a) is divisible, applied the modified categorical approach, and concluded Spaho’s sale conviction constitutes an “illicit trafficking” aggravated felony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Divisibility of Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a) | Spaho: statute is indivisible (alternative means, not alternative elements); Donawa controls, so categorical approach required | Government/BIA: statute enumerates alternative elements (sale, delivery, manufacture, possession with intent, etc.), so it's divisible | Court: statute is divisible; textual and Florida case law show separate alternative elements, so modified categorical approach applies |
| Appropriate approach (categorical vs. modified categorical) | Spaho: Donawa barred use of modified categorical; must apply categorical analysis | DHS/BIA: modified categorical approach proper because statute is divisible and conviction can be limited to sale | Court: modified categorical approach applies because § 893.13(1)(a) is divisible |
| Whether Spaho’s sale conviction is an “illicit trafficking” aggravated felony | Spaho: his convictions are not aggravated felonies (would preserve eligibility for relief) | DHS/BIA: sale (and possession with intent to sell) are commercial acts that meet BIA’s illicit‑trafficking definition; sale conviction therefore qualifies | Court: sale conviction qualifies as illicit trafficking (commercial conduct) and is an aggravated felony under § 1101(a)(43)(B) |
| Precedent conflict (Donawa v. Matter of L‑G‑H) | Spaho: Donawa (11th Cir.) precludes modified categorical approach and requires categorical analysis; BIA’s L‑G‑H is inconsistent and should not control | DHS/BIA: L‑G‑H supports divisibility and illicit‑trafficking analysis; Donawa addressed a different question and is distinguishable | Court: Donawa is distinguishable (addressed drug‑trafficking subset and mens rea issues); the panel follows BIA/L‑G‑H reasoning here and upholds divisibility and modified categorical use |
Key Cases Cited
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013) (describes categorical approach for immigration aggravated‑felony analysis)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (distinguishes categorical and modified categorical approaches; defines divisibility)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (explains elements vs. means inquiry and reliance on state court interpretation)
- Donawa v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 735 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2013) (held Fla. § 893.13(1)(a)(2) was not a drug‑trafficking aggravated felony; rejected modified categorical approach in that context)
- Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47 (2006) (traffic/trafficking requires commercial dealing; relevant to ‘‘illicit trafficking’’ meaning)
- Accardo v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 634 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2011) (standard of appellate review for aggravated‑felony determinations)
- Mellouli v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 1980 (2015) (explains documents courts may consult under modified categorical approach)