Francisco Rodriguez-Trinidad, A044 892 640 (BIA Feb. 24, 2016)

8/20/2019 Francisco Rodriguez-Trinidad, A044 892 640 (BIA Feb. 24, 2016)

1/9

Conkli, Dael 8. Esq.The Shag Law Goup LLCThe Ins of St. Jude120 South StreeHarrsburg PA 17101

U.S Department of Justice

Executive Oce r Immigaton Revew

Board of Immigration AppeasOce the Clerk

517 Lesburg Pik, Sit 0Fal Cch. V 22-1

DHS L./Yor Co. Pso/YOR3400 Cocod RoaYok PA 7402

Name: RODRIGUEZ-RDAD FRANC.. A 04492640

Dae o this otce 2/24/206

nclosed s a copy of he Boad's decson and ode n te above-efeenced case

ncosue

Panel Mmbrs:G, A J.phu Gy Duy Rog

nceely,

Donna CaCief Clek

Ut Dock

Cite as: Francisco Rodriguez-Trinidad, A044 892 640 (BIA Feb. 24, 2016)

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visitwww.irac.net/unpublished/index/

p p

,


2/9

Executive Oe r Immiation Review

Decisio of he Board o migaion Appeal

FaJ Chrc, Vigiia 20530

Fie: A044 892 640 Yo PA

n re: FRNCSCO RODRGUE-NIDAD

N EMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

CERTIFCAION

Date:

ON BEHALF OF ESPONDENT: Dael B. Cok Esqie

AMICUS CIAE: Dale Wlcox

FOR TE DS:

CARGE

Federaton r Aercan Imigaion Rem

Bria G. McDoeAssisan Chief Conse

FEB 2 4 016

Noce: Sec 237(a)(2)(B)(), I& N Act [8 US.C § 227(a)(2)(B)(i)] -Convcted of conolled ssce voation

odged: Sec 237(a)(2)(A)(ii) &N Act 8 USC. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii)] Convced of aggavated lony nde secon 10(a)(43)(B) of the Act

APPICAON Cacellation of emova

hs case is bere the Board o cetcao by he Igation dge prsant to 8 CF.R.§ 1003(c)2 In a decsio dated Apl 13 205 he Iigation Jdge d the epoden, anatve and citize of Veneela ad a lal permaen esdent, removabe as chged denedhs applicaton r cancelaton of removal prsan to sectio 240A(a) of he Imgaon ad Naionaliy Ac (the "Act), 8 USC § 229(a) de o satoy elgiiy, d odeed theresponden emoved he appeal wil be staed, d he record wl e reanded o theImgration Jdge ther poceedings nd r he enty of a new decision

he Boad eviews a Igaton Jdge's dings of ct cdng credibltydeernaons and he kehood of ure eves de a "cley eoeos standard. 8 C.F.R

§ 1003(d)(3)(i); Mater of ZZ- 26 & N Dec. 586 (BIA 201) We revew al oher sses,

We acnowedge wth appreciaton the hogh agens ased n the brief smitted y. amcs cae

2 We observe ha aer the mmigatio dge ceied ths maer to he Board, the respodetalso smted a Fo EOR-26 Notice of Appeal om a Decison of a mgaton dge.


p p

,


3/9

A044 892 640

inclding estions of aw jdgmen or discretion de a de novo sadrd. 8 CF.R§ 1003(d)(3)(ii).

The espondent has been chrged wih emovabiity prsnt to secion 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) ofthe Act r having been convicted of n aggravated ony as dened nder section

0(a)(43)(B) of he Act 8 USC § l 0 (a)(43)(B) Under that section n aien is removabe ifhe has been coviced of ilici racing in a controled sbsnce (as dened in section 02 ofthe Controlled Sbstaces Act ("CSA)) icding a drg acking cime (as dened insecion 924(c) of title 18 Unied Saes Code). In Evanson v US Att' Gen 550 F3d 284 (3dCir. 2008) the Uned Staes Cou of Appeals the hid Cici ("hid Circit) set rh theappicable appoaches to deemiing whether a state drg conviction constiues an aggavatedony Fist "a state drg conviction constiutes n aggravated lony if (a) it wold bepnishabe as a feony nder the dera Conroled Sbstnces Act o (b) i is a ony ndestate law nd incdes an iicit cking eement. Accodingly we apply wo independent

tests deterining whehe a sate dg oense consittes an aggavaed ony he iicittracing eement' rote nd the hypohetical deal ony rote Evanon v U Att

Gen, supra, a 28889 (ciing Gacia v US Att Gen., 462 F.3d 287, 291 (3d Ci 2006)).

Unde the hypohetical deral ony test, the staute of conviction is compred to the CSA o detemine whethe he convicion is pnshable s a ony der the CSA ie. by moe haone yes impisonent (ee 18 US.C §§ 924(c)(2) 3559(a)(5)). Eanson supa a 289Furhemoe, "a sae [drg] oense consitutes a lony pishable nder he ContoledSbstances Act ony if it poscibes condct pnishable as a lony nde that der aw.Lopez Gonzale 549 U.S 47, 58 (2006) he Immigation dge in this matte nd that therespondents convicion was r aggravated lony nde this hypotheica fedeal lonyapproach and ths deermined hat he responden was statoriy ineligibe r cancelaion ofemoval nde section 240A(a) of the Ac he respondent imey appeaed hs determinaion tothe Bod

Thee is no dispte that on Jnary 24 204 the responden was convicted llowing a pleaof gilty in the Cou of Common Peas of Lehigh Coy, Criminal Division Commonweath ofPesyvnia the oense of possession wih intent to delive a conroled sbsnce, to witmra, in vioaion of 35 Pa Cons. Stat § 78013(a)(30) (I. at ; DHS sbmission daed1/26/15 Tab C). 35 Pa. Cons. Sat. § 780-113(30) prohbis he lowing:

Except as athoized by his act he mnctre deivey o possession wihinten o mncte o deliver a controled sbsnce by a peson no regiseredunder his act or a praciioner not registeed or icensed by the appopriae Staeboad or knowingy ceaing delivering or possessing wih inent to delive, aconterit conroled sbsance.

The Trd Circit has considered this crimina sate in the immigraion conext previosly.n Jeune v US Att Gen., 476 F3d 199 (3d Cir. 2007) the Third Circit addessed the discreeisse of whether a convicion nder 35 Pa. Cons Stat § 78013(a)(30) withot any addiionacs consited n "aggravated lony nder section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of he Ac 8 S.C§ 227(a)(2)(A)(iii) The Co hed hat becase he ecord was silen as o the qantiy of

2


p p

,


4/9


5/9

A044 892 60

Tis subsection re caies at r pposes o tis subsection tiry (30) gams ofaaa o egt (8) gams of ass sal be considered a smal amont o maaa

Sbsequent to te issnce o te Trd Cicuit's line of cases in Jeune and Evanson, teSpeme Cot issed Moncriefe v. Holder 133 SCt 678 (2013) in wic it claed te

application o e ypotetical deal ony appoac to section 0(a)(43)(B) aggavatedlony deteinations In Moncriefe te Supeme Court consideed weter an alien'sconviction under Geogia aw possession of maiana wit intent to distribte constituted anaggravated ony Te Co began by stating tat wen e Goveent aleges hat a stateconviction ualies as an agavated lony unde te Act te co generaly employs acategorica appoac to deteine wete te state oense is comprabe to an oense isted inhe Act Moncriefe v Holder supra at 1684 Moeove, nde ts categoica appoac teco ooks not to te cts of te picular pio case bt instead to wete e state stattedening te crie o conviction categoricaly ts withn te geneic dea denition of acoesponding aggavated ony Id

Unde te Act a state oense is a categoical matc wt a geneic deal oense only i aconviction of the state oense necessaiy volved cts equating to te geneic dea oenseand weer te noncitizens actal condct invoved sc cts is ieevant Id Because tecout examines wat e state conviction necessariy invoved, not te cts ndelying te casein deteminng nder te categoica appoac wehe te conviction was n aggavatedony nder te Act it mst prese tat te conviction rested upon nohing more tan te eastof te acts crminaized and ten deterine wete even ose acts are encompassed by tegeneric federa oense Id However te co empasized tat its cus on te minimumcondct ciminalized by e state statute was not an invitation to apply lega imagination to testate oense Rate tee must be a "eaistic probability not a teoetica possibiity, tat testate woud appy its statte to condct tat s otside te generic denition of a cime.Moncriefe v Holder supra at 685.

Te cour und tat using tis categoical approac te aiens Geogia conviction possession o miuna wit tent to disibte did not necessary invove cts tatcorresponded to a lony oense de te CSA, and us it was no r an aggravated onyrendering an aien deportabe de te Act Unde te Geogia law in qestion te ct o teaien's conviction standing aone did not eveal eite weter remneaion or moe tan asmal amount o mariuana was nvolved. ndeed te cour nd tere to be a reasonableprobabiity tat te Geogia statute wold be used to posecte a "smal amount of maianar no emuneation, observing tat "we kow tat Georgia posectes tis oense wen adendt possesses ony a small amount o maiana see eg Taylor v Stae 260 GaApp890 58 SE2d 386 388 (2003) (6.6 gras) and at disibution does not eqire

emneration Moncriefe v Holder supra at 686 Tus te conviction coud avecoesponded to eiter a ony or a misdemeano oense nder te CSA Accodingy tecout nd tat te respondent was not emovabe as an aggavated lon nde section01(a)(43)(B) o te Act Howeve te cou obseved tat wile most States do not avesepaate stad-aone oenses § 841 (b)(4) condct ie te exception r social sing ofmaijana een States do, incuding Pensylvania Moncriefe v Holder supra at 691n10 Te impor o aving suc a statoy sceme was not te discussed.

4


p p

,


6/9

A044 892 640

The Thid Cicut has yet to addss i a pdet th otiuig viabiity of its deiio iJeune It is clea howev that the Jeune decisio is, i ight of the Supeme Cours latdecisio i Moncriefe copete as it does ot addess whethe th is a "ealisticpobability that 35 Pa. Cos. Stat § 780-13(a)(30) would b used to puish coduct that is ot

punshabl as a oy d the CSA Accodigy i ode to assess th espodetsovability as an aggavatd o w wll edeavo to do so he

The Pnsylvaa case aw o this subjct is somwhat i coict his dcisio, the

igatio Judge citd to ad discussd two Pensylvana Supio Cou dcisios discussigthe iterpay btw 35 Pa. Stat §§ 780-13(a)(3 l ) and othe subsectios of § 780 13(a) Commonwealth v Gordon, 897 A.2d 504 (Pa Sup Ct. 2006), the Pesylvaa Supio Courcosideed the itpay of 35 Pa Cos Stat §§ 780-l 13(a)(l 6) which cmiaizes[k]owigy o ittioally possessig a cotod o couteit substac by a peso otegisted ud hs act and sectio 780-3(a)(3 l ) Although chaged ud boh sectiosh applat, who possessd 867 gams of maiuana was ultiatly covicted ud 35 Pa.

Cos Stat §§ 780 13(a)(6) whch carid the geat peaty Notig the PnsylvaiaGal Assebys itt to cate a gaduated system of pealties violatios of § 780-13h cour vacated the applant's covictio ude subsectio (16), holdig that his coduct llud the o spcic oese of simple possessio of a smal aout of aijuaa udesectio 780113(a)(3 l ) ahe than the moe ga subsectio (6).

Moe ctly i Commonwealth v. Tisdale 100 A.3d 216 (Pa. Supe. Ct 204) hPesyvaa Supeio Cou addessed th itepay betw he moe gal § 780-13(a)(30)ad the oe specic xceptio cotaied at § 780-113(a)(31). The cou discussd thespecic/geea ule, which pohibits posecutio und the gea povisios of the palcode whe th ae appicable specia povisios availabe Thus, lyig i pa o Gordon thecour vacated the applats covictio ude § 780- 13(a)(30) possssio wth itet todeive dig that he should istead have bee covicted ude § 780- 13(a)(3 l ) as h codeected that the appellat possssd oly 8.64 gams of maiuaa. I so doig the co spokappovigy of the Gordon cou's statet hat the spcic/geea u had st beanoucd i 1943 ad had b ud to b stil i c at the tim of a Supio Courdecisio i 2002 Id at 218-9 (citig Commonwealth v Leber 802 A2d 648 650 (Pa. SupeCt 2002)

Howeve whi h specic/geal rule was idd i eect at h tie of Commonwealth Leber, ithe Gordon o Tisdale cotais ay discussio of the ct that the Pnsylvanialgislat had abogatd th "spcic/gal ue i Psyvaia by staute i Dceb2002 Specically, i that yea Pennsyvania adopted 42 Pa Cos Stat 9303 which states as

lows:

Notwithstadig the povisios of PaCS § 1933 (atig to picua cotosgea) o any othe statte to the cotrary wh the se coduct of addant vioates moe than o cia statut, the dedat ay bposcutd ud a avaiable statutoy cimial povisios without egad to thegeaity o specicity of the stautes

5


p p

,


7/9


8/9


9/9

A044 892 640

Moncriefe However, upo cosiderato o a aspects o hs case, o de ovo review wedisaee wt the mmgato Judge's determiatio, d wl everse it.

Notably, the Immatio Judge's decsio hs case does ot refect ay cosderato othe Pesylvaa cases that hold that a perso may be chaged d covcted der § 780-

13(a)(30) eve whe hs coduct ls wth the "excepto set rh at § 780-3(a)(3 l) . See e.g. Commonwealth v Pagan, supra I addito t does ot address the coted viablty oGordonad Tidale i ight o Pesylvaia's abrogato by staute o he specifc/geera ulei Decembe 2002. See, eg Commonwealh Nypaer upra Fally, o ecessity, theImgato Jdge's deciso also did ot beet om te Third Circut's very recet decsoi Walker . US Att 'y Gen, whch, while upublished, suppots a dg o the cotiuedappcablity o Jeune to § 780-3(a)(30) covictios subsequet to the Speme Co's�oncrie deciso. Give al o these ctos, we caot agee wth the mmgratio Judge that he respodets covictio ude § 780-l 3(a)(30) ecessrly excldes pushg coduct hatwould fll ude the exceptio set frth at § 780- 3(a)(3 l) . O the coary, we cocludethat there s a "ealistc pobability that the Commowealth o Pesyva would appy itsstate to coduct that lls outside the geerc dento o a dg ackg aggravated floy,d that the Iigrato Judges deciso t the coy must be revesed.

We ote that dug poceedgs below the respodet admtted all o the allegatoscotaed the Notice to Appear, d the Immgrato Judge the susted e charge oremovablity uder sectio 237(a)(2)(B)(i) o the Act, 8 SC. § 227(a)(2)(B)(), pertag toa cotroled sbstace violato. O appeal, e respodet does ot cotest this aspect o theIgrato Jdges decso. However, as ths groud o removability does ot statorilypeclude cacellatio o removal we wil remad ths maer to the iato Judge frcosiderato o ths frm o ele, d ay othe eie f whch the respodet is elgble dwshes to prsue.

Accordgly, the fllowg orders will be eteedOER: The appeal is sstaed.FURTHER ORDER: The ecod s emded to the mmgratio Judge rther

proceedgs cosistet wth the fegog opo ad f he etry o a ew decso.

� l f� FOR THE BOARD

8


p p

,

Documents

Francisco Rodriguez-Trinidad, A044 892 640 (BIA Feb. 24, 2016)