7/26/2019 Francisco Rodriguez-Trinidad, A044 892 640 (BIA May 18, 2016)

1/3

Daniel B Co

nklin Esq.

120

South Street

Harrisbur

g P 17101

U

S D epartme

nt

o

Justice

Execut

ive Office for

Immigration R

eview

B

oard of mmigr

ation Appeals

Of

fice of he Cle

rk

5 07

Leesburg Pike. Suite

2000

Falls Ch

urch,

Vi r

ginia 2204

/

DH

S LIT Nork

C

o. Pris onN O

R

340

0 Concord R

oad

York PA

17402

N

ame: RODRI

GUEZ-TRINID

AD FRANCI .

..

A 044-892

-640

Date

of

this

notice: 5/18/2

016

E

nclosed is a c

ourtesy copy

o the Board s d

ecision in the

above-referen

ced case.

Enclosure

Panel Mem

bers:

Pau

ley Roger

Sinc

erely,

[

onnL { 1 / lA

Donna Carr

C h ief C

lerk

Usertea

m:

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visitwww.irac.net/unpublished/index/

Cite as: Francisco Rodriguez-Trinidad, A044 892 640 (BIA May 18, 2016)

7/26/2019 Francisco Rodriguez-Trinidad, A044 892 640 (BIA May 18, 2016)

2/3

1_ s. epartment

o

Justice

Executive Office or Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

File: A044 892 640 - York.

PA

In

re: FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ-TRINIDAD

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

MOTION

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Pro se

ON

BEHALF OF OHS: Brian G. McDonnell

Assistant

Chief

Counsel

APPLICATION: Reconsideration

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Date:

MAY

8 2 16

The Department of Homeland Security (the DHS ) timely moves the Board pursuant to

8 C.F.R. 1003.2 to reconsider ourdecisiondated February 24, 2016.

The

respondent has filed

a brief opposing the DHS s motion. The

DHS s

motion will be denied.

When this case was previously before us

on

February 24, 2016, we sustained the

respondent's appeal of an April 13, 2015, Immigration

Judge s

decision that found the

respondent removable from the United States based

on

his conviction for illicit trafficking in a

controlled substance (as defined

in

section 1012

of

the Controlled Substances Act), including a

drug trafficking crime (as defined

in

section 924(c)

of

Title 18, United States Code), and thus

ineligible for relief from removal, to particularly include cancellation

of

removal, as

an

alien

convicted of an aggravated felony.

ee

sections 10I(a)(43)(B), 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), and

237(a)(2)(B)(i)

of

the Immigration and Nationality Act ( Act ), 8 U.S.C. 110I(a)(43)(B),

I227(a)(2)(A)(iii), and I227(a)(2)(B)(i). However, as it was uncontested that the respondent was

also removable under section 237(a)(2)(B)(i)

of

the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), which is a

ground

of

removability that does not preclude cancellation

of

removal,

we

remanded this matter

to the Immigration Judge to allow the respondent

to

seek relief from removal.

A motion to reconsider shall specify the errors

of

fact or

law

in

the

prior Board decision and

shall be supported

by

pertinent authority. ee 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(b)(l).

In

this case, the DHS

asserts that our determination that the respondent is not removable as an aggravated felon is the

product

of

legal error.

In

support

of

its claim, it raises two principal arguments. First, the OHS

argues that the Board erred in finding that there is a realistic probability that the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania would prosecute an individual under 35 Pa. Cons. Stat. 780-I l3(a)(30) for

distribution

of

a small amount

of

marijuana without remuneration (which is conduct specifically

Daniel B. Conklin filed a

brief

on

behalf of

the respondent. The attorney, however, did

not

file

a Notice of Entry of Appearance (Form EOIR-27). We will, however, provide him with a

courtesy copy

of

this decision.

g

g

p p

Cite as: Francisco Rodriguez-Trinidad, A044 892 640 (BIA May 18, 2016)

https://www.scribd.com/doc/301193841/Francisco-Rodriguez-Trinidad-A044-892-640-BIA-Feb-24-2016https://www.scribd.com/doc/301193841/Francisco-Rodriguez-Trinidad-A044-892-640-BIA-Feb-24-2016https://www.scribd.com/doc/301193841/Francisco-Rodriguez-Trinidad-A044-892-640-BIA-Feb-24-2016

7/26/2019 Francisco Rodriguez-Trinidad, A044 892 640 (BIA May 18, 2016)

3/3

A04

4 892 6

40

add

ressed

under

780-

l 13(a)(

31 )).

Second

, the D

HS ar

gues th

at , con

trary t

o the

Board's

dete

rm inat

ion, the

spec

ific/gen

eral ru

le rem

ains en

forcea

ble and

in acc

ord wi

th the

Federa

l

Con

trolled

Substa

nc es A

ct, des

pi te Pe

nnsylv

an ia's s

tatutory

abrog

at ion o

the s

pecific

/genera

l

r

ule in 2

002. A

t its c

ore, the

DH S '

s motio

n refle

cts a di

sagreem

ent w

ith the

legal c

on clusi

ons

the B

oard ha

s draw

n from

its rev

iewo

Pennsy

lvania

and Th

ird Cir

cu it cas

e law.

We a

re not

persuaded by the DHS's motion that our prior decision contains errors

o

fact or law, and we

rea

ffirm ou

r prior

decisio

n for th

e detai

ledrea

sons sta

tedthe

rein.

W

e ackn

ow ledg

e that,

fo llow

ing the

DHS's

motion

, the r

espond

en t file

d his o

wnmo

tio n to

accep

t supp

lementa

l filing

, with

attache

d rece

nt Penn

sy lvan

ia crim

inal co

nvictio

n docu

ments

wh

ich he

asserts

show

th at Pe

nnsylv

an ia pr

osecute

s and c

onvict

s perso

ns und

er 5 P

a. Con

s.

Sta

t. 78

0-l 13(a

)(30) f

or co n

duct w

hich fa

lls und

er the

excepti

on for

pe rson

al use

o sm a

ll

am ount

s o

m

arijuan

a not fo

r remu

neratio

n foun

d at 5

Pa. Co

ns . Sta

t. 78

0-l13(a

)(31).

The

DH

Shas

filed a

brief in

opposi

tion to

theresp

onden

t's moti

on . In

light o

our fo

regoing

decisi

on

deny

ing th e

DH S '

s motio

n to re

co nside

r, we

need n

ot addr

ess th e

respon

dent's

motion

or the

evid

ence a

ppende

d there

to. H

oweve

r, we

note th

at the

Im mig

ra tion

Judge

will h

ave an

op portun ity to review this evidence on remand, and

to

de termine its ap plicability

to

the issues

befo

rehi

m.

Accord

ingly, t

he follo

wing o

rder w

ill be en

tered.

ORDE

R: Th

e motio

n is den

ied.