Young v. Holder
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1771
9th Cir.2011Background
- Young petitions for review of a BIA decision affirming removability and denying cancellation of removal.
- BIA upheld IJ's removability finding under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11352(a) and denied cancellation due to alleged aggravated felony.
- Young previously pled guilty to § 11352(a) in 2005; 2001 conviction also exists for § 11352(a).
- DHS issued a Notice to Appear in 2006 based on the 2005 conviction; IJ found removability and potential aggravated felony.
- BIA relied on Almazan-Becerra to treat a guilty plea to a conjunctive charging statute as admitting all acts, including illicit trafficking.
- Court remands on cancellation issue, holding record insufficient to show conviction necessarily involved drug trafficking; removability issue remains subject to exhaustion analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Removability based on a controlled-substance offense | Young contends record does not unequivocally prove a controlled-substance violation. | BIA/DOJ argue conviction satisfies removable grounds under § 1227(a)(2)(B). | No jurisdiction to review; exhaustion failed on this precise issue. |
| Cancellation of removal despite potentially non-aggravated felony | Judicially noticeable documents fail to show the conviction was necessarily for an aggravated felony. | Record shows acts within the statute could constitute illicit trafficking, making it an aggravated felony under modified CAT analysis. | Reversed on cancellation eligibility; record inconclusive to prove aggravated felony; remand for relief considerations. |
| Exhaustion/jurisdiction requirements | Issues raised to BIA were sufficient to exhaust challenges to removability and aggravation analysis. | Exhaustion not satisfied for claim that § 11352(a) involved no controlled-substance relation. | Court lacks jurisdiction to review the removability claim due to failure to exhaust the specific issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Malta-Espinoza v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2007) (overbroad conjunctive charges limit interpretation of guilty pleas for modified CAT)
- Vidal v. United States, 504 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2007) (indictment reciting statute language insufficient for generic offenses under modified CAT)
- Penuliar v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 603 (9th Cir. 2008) (guilty plea to statutory language alone not enough to prove generic offense)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limits modified categorical approach to record of conviction including factual findings)
- Sandoval-Lua v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2007) (modified CAT burden for eligibility requires preponderance showing not an aggravated felony)