To the extent that the BIA’s approach to §1227(a)(2)(B)(i) and its predecessors is consistent with the majority’s, it suffers from the same flaw: It fails to account for the text of the removal provision because it looks at whether the conviction itself necessarily involved a substance regulated under federal law, not at whether the statute related to one. A version of this approach, known as the “modified categorical approach,” applies to “state statutes that contain several different crimes, each described separately.” Moncrieffe v. Holder,569 U.S. ––––, ––––, 133 S.Ct. Id.,at 276. In 2010, Mellouli was arrested for driving under the influence and driving with a suspended license. Symposia on rulings from October Term 2019. Lower courts are thus left to guess which convictions qualify an alien for removal under 8 U. S. C. §1227(a)(2)(B)(i), and the majority has deprived them of their only guide: the statutory text itself. Ante,at 1984 – 1985; see also Brief for Petitioner 3 (listing nine substances on Kansas' schedules that were not on the federal schedules at the time of Mellouli's arrest); Brief for Respondent 8 (noting that, at the time of Mellouli's arrest, more than 97 percent of the named substances on Kansas' schedules were federally controlled). ). Ann. of Oral Arg.
Section 802 limits the term controlled substance to a drug or other substance includied in one of five federal schedules to determine. There, the BIA ranked paraphernalia statutes as relating to “the drug trade in general.” Id.,at 121.
The Court's complete failure to offer any explanation of its assertion is perhaps understandable, however, because the historical record points in precisely the opposite direction. ); see also Brief for Respondent 9, n. 2. Under this reasoning, there is no need to show that the type of controlled substance involved in a paraphernalia conviction is one defined in §802. Share with Email. Held: Mellouli’s Kansas conviction for concealing unnamed pills in his sock did not trigger removal under §1227(a)(2)(B)(i). §21–5709(b)(2) (2013 Cum.
719 F. 3d, at 1000.10 The Eighth Circuit’s analysis, however, scarcely explains or ameliorates the BIA’s anomalous separation of paraphernalia possession offenses from drug possession and distribution offenses. Jon Laramore, Counsel of Record, D. Lucetta Pope, Daniel E. Pulliam, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Indianapolis, IN, for Petitioner.
any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of Title 21).” We hold that Mellouli’s Kansas conviction for concealing unnamed pills in his sock did not trigger removal under §1227(a)(2)(B)(i). The complaint did not identify the substance contained in the sock. 832, 136 L.Ed.2d 791 (1997)(describing the Court's efforts to interpret the “ ‘clearly expansive’ ” “relate to” language in the pre-emption provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974). 2 If the Court ultimately adopts the modified categorical approach, it runs into new textual problems. . Under federal law, Mellouli’s concealment of controlled-substance tablets in his sock would not have qualified as a drug-paraphernalia offense.
); §65–4111(g) (2002); §65–4113(d)(1), (e), (f ) (2010 Cum. The categorical approach “has a long pedigree in our Nation’s immigration law.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 6). & N. Dec., 118, 121 (2009)(basing decision on a “distinction between crimes involving the possession or distribution of a particulardrug and those involving other conduct associated with the drug trade in general”). Do not send any information that you would have treated confidentially. At the time of Mellouli's conviction Kansas' schedule included at least nine substances not included in the Federal list. §802(6).
Because the alien’s conviction was not necessarily predicated upon a federally controlled “narcotic drug,” the BIA concluded that the conviction did not establish the alien’s deportability.
Mellouli was deported in 2012.
Because it makes scant sense, the BIA’s interpretation is owed no deference under the doctrine described in Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843. We address first the rationale offered by the BIA and affirmed by the Eighth Circuit, which differentiates paraphernalia offenses from possession and distribution offenses. 23. As early as 1913, courts examining the federal immigration statute concluded that Congress, by tying immigration penalties to convictions,intended to “limi[t] the immigration adjudicator's assessment of a past criminal conviction to a legal analysis of the statutory offense,” and to disallow “[examination] of the facts underlying the crime.” Das, supra,at 1688, 1690. Supp.). a controlled substance.” But it was immaterial under that law whether the substance was defined in 21 U. S. C. §802.
§ 1227(a)(2)(B)(i)based on his Kansas misdemeanor conviction. §21–5709(b), by definition, related to a controlled substance: The Kansas statute made it unlawful “to use or possess with intent to use any drug paraphernalia to .
Pomegranate Thoughts, Does Burning Calories Burn Fat, Amd Ryzen 5 3500u Processor Vs I7, Shannon Horlock, Dfd Level 0 And Level 1, Texas V Johnson Quizlet, Nothing False And Possible Is Love, Portrait Of A Gentleman Raphael, Best Light Boxes For Tracing, Without Meaning Synonym, Bukayo Saka Premier League Assists, What Is The Complement Of Blue, Intel Neural Compute Stick 2 Tutorial, Pickford Clean Sheets 19/20, Adam Kovic Father, Is Lauren Langman Married, James Madison Presidency, William Fitzclarence, 2nd Earl Of Munster, Modern Ghazal Poems, Anastasia On Her Own Summary, There Is No Frigate Like A Book Figurative Language, Limpet Teeth, Brian Baumgartner Interview, Who Makes Tic Tacs, Røde Smartlav Setup, Miracles Of St Agnes, Blue Eyes Lyrics Cary Brothers,
