Syblis v. Attorney General of the United States
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15801
| 3rd Cir. | 2014Background
- Damian Syblis, a Jamaican national, overstayed a nonimmigrant visa and was placed in removal proceedings; he conceded removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B).
- Syblis has two relevant Virginia convictions: (1) possession of drug paraphernalia (Va. Code § 54.1-3466) in 2004 (amended charge) and (2) possession of marijuana in 2008 (Va. Code § 18.2-250.1).
- DHS charged removability also under the controlled-substance provision, and Syblis sought an 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) waiver (available for a single simple possession of ≤30 grams of marijuana).
- IJ and BIA concluded the paraphernalia statute “relates to” controlled substances and, because Syblis had two convictions potentially relating to federally defined controlled substances, he was ineligible for the § 1182(h) waiver; Syblis appealed.
- The central factual-documentary problem: Syblis’s record of conviction for the paraphernalia offense is inconclusive as to which substance (if any federally defined) was involved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Va. Code § 54.1-3466 is a law “relating to” controlled substances under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) | Syblis: statute targets "drugs," not "controlled substances," so it does not necessarily relate to federally defined controlled substances | Government/BIA: the paraphernalia statute explicitly references “controlled substances” and links paraphernalia to substances listed in VA schedules (which overlap federal CSA), so it relates to controlled substances | Held: § 54.1-3466 relates to controlled substances; the "relating to" inquiry is broad and satisfied here |
| Whether an inconclusive record of conviction satisfies the alien’s burden to prove eligibility for discretionary relief (i.e., show the conviction did not involve a federally controlled substance) | Syblis: record silence should suffice to avoid a finding that the conviction necessarily involved a federally controlled substance | Government/BIA: the alien bears the burden by a preponderance to show ineligibility of the statutory ground; inconclusive records do not meet that burden | Held: An inconclusive record is insufficient; the alien must prove by a preponderance that the substance was not federally controlled |
| Whether the court should apply the categorical/modified-categorical approach to the "relating to" inquiry | Syblis: initially argued categorical approaches applied (later conceded at argument) | Government/BIA: "relating to" analysis is not a strict categorical element-by-element match; a broader inquiry applies | Held: The categorical approach does not control; use a broad "relating to" inquiry focusing on the nature of the conviction |
| Whether Syblis is eligible for § 1182(h) waiver given his two convictions and the record | Syblis: even if § 54.1-3466 relates to controlled substances, the inconclusive record means he has not been shown to have a conviction involving a federally defined controlled substance, so he should be eligible | Government/BIA: because § 54.1-3466 relates to controlled substances and Syblis cannot prove the substance was not federally defined, he is ineligible | Held: Syblis failed to meet his burden; denial of waiver and removal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pieschacon-Villegas v. Attorney Gen., 671 F.3d 303 (3d Cir. 2011) (review standard when BIA issues its own decision)
- Rojas v. Attorney General, 728 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2013) (framework for determining when a conviction "relates to" a federally defined controlled substance)
- Borrome v. Attorney General, 687 F.3d 150 (3d Cir. 2012) (distinguishing FDCA from paraphernalia laws in "relating to" analysis)
- Luu-Le v. INS, 224 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 2000) (broad construction of "relating to" for drug-related statutes)
- Martinez v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2008) (Second Circuit view that inconclusive record can suffice in aggravated-felony context)
- Sanchez v. Holder, 757 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. 2014) (in relief context, inconclusive record insufficient; alien loses if proof is closely balanced)
- Young v. Holder, 697 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (inconclusive record does not satisfy burden for relief)
- Salem v. Holder, 647 F.3d 111 (4th Cir. 2011) (alien must prove by preponderance that mandatory denial grounds do not apply)
- Garcia v. Holder, 584 F.3d 1288 (10th Cir. 2009) (ambiguity in record does not relieve alien of burden to prove eligibility)
- Thomas v. Attorney General, 625 F.3d 134 (3d Cir. 2010) (categorical-approach context; distinguished here)