Young v. Holder
653 F.3d 897
9th Cir.2011Background
- Young is a native of St. Kitts and Nevis and a British citizen who became a lawful permanent resident in 1977.
- In 2001, Young pled no contest to violating California Health & Safety Code § 11352(a).
- In 2005, Young pled guilty to the same statute and was sentenced to 3 years in prison.
- DHS served a Notice to Appear in 2006 charging removability for a controlled substances offense and for an aggravated felony related to illicit trafficking.
- The IJ found Young removable for a controlled-substance offense and denied cancellation of removal; the BIA affirmed, later remanding on the aggravated-felony issue, and the Ninth Circuit granted partial relief and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of the controlled-substance claim | Young argues the record does not prove a controlled-substance offense. | BIA and DHS contend the issue was not properly exhausted on appeal. | Review lacks jurisdiction to decide the controlled-substance removal issue. |
| Eligibility for cancellation of removal | Record is inconclusive; plea to an overly broad statute cannot prove an aggravated felony. | Record shows plea to an aggravated felony under the modified categorical approach. | Record insufficient to prove aggravated felony; remand to determine eligibility for cancellation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruiz-Vidal v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2007) (examines evidence of controlled-substance offense in conviction record)
- Sandoval-Lua v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2007) (modified categorical approach for aggravated felonies; burden on petitioner)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (S. Ct. 1990) (categorical and modified categorical approaches for classification)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (S. Ct. 2005) (limits on record sources in using the modified categorical approach)
- Malta-Espinoza v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2007) (disjunctive charge in conjunctive statute; plea does not prove all acts)
- Vidal v. United States, 504 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2007) (charge reciting statutory language insufficient to prove generic offense)
- Penuliar v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 603 (9th Cir. 2008) (guilty plea reciting statute alone may not prove principal culpability)