12-2798 Pascual v. Holder **UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS** 1 2 **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT** 3 4 August Term, 2012 5 6 7 (Submitted: February 5, 2013 Decided: February 19, 2013) 8 9 Docket No. 12-2798 10 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 12 13 Manuel Pascual, AKA Scarface Gomez, 14 15 Petitioner, 16 17 - v.- 18 19 Eric H. Holder, Jr., United States Attorney General, 20 21 Respondent

. 22 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 23 Before: JACOBS, Chief Judge , KEARSE and CARNEY, 24 Circuit Judges

. 25 26 Petitioner, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, seeks 27 review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order, affirming an 28 immigration judge’s finding that Manuel Pascual had been 29 convicted of an aggravated felony, and was therefore 30 ineligible for cancellation of removal from the United 31 States. For the following reasons, we conclude that 32 Pascual’s New York state conviction under NYPL § 220.39(1) 33 constitutes an aggravated felony, which deprives this Court 34 of jurisdiction to review the order of removal. 35THOMAS EDWARD MOSELEY, 1 Law Offices of Thomas E. Moseley 2 Newark, New Jersey, for 3 Petitioner

. 4 5 BENJAMIN MARK MOSS, 6 United States Department of 7 Justice, Office of Immigration 8 Litigation, forRespondent

. 9 10 PER CURIAM: 11 12 Manuel Pascual, a citizen of the Dominican 13 Republic, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration 14 Appeals (“BIA”) decision to affirm an immigration judge’s 15 (“IJ”) finding that Pascual had been convicted of an 16 aggravated felony, and was therefore ineligible for 17 cancellation of removal. Pascual also seeks review of the 18 BIA’s denial of a continuance to seek post-conviction relief 19 and moves for a stay of removal pending appeal, leave to 20 proceed in forma pauperisand appointment of counsel. The 21 Government moves to dismiss Pascual’s petition for review on 22 the ground that the BIA’s determination that Pascual had 23 been convicted of an aggravated felony deprives this Court 24 of jurisdiction to review the agency’s order of removal. We 25 grant the Government’s motion and dismiss Pascual’s petition 26 because the BIA correctly determined that Pascual had been 27 convicted of an aggravated felony. We also deny Pascual’s 28 additional motions as moot. 29 2**BACKGROUND** 1 Pascual was admitted to the United States as a legal 2 permanent resident in 1993. In 2003, Pascual was served 3 with a Notice to Appear charging him with removability under 4 the Immigration & Nationality Act (“INA”) § 237(a)(2)(B)(i) , 5 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), by reason of a 2000 Connecticut 6 state conviction for cocaine possession. Then in December 7 of 2011, he was served with an additional charging document 8 seeking his removal pursuant to INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) , 8 9 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), by reason of an aggravated 10 felony, citing a 2008 New York state conviction for third11 degree criminal sale of a controlled substance, cocaine, in 12 violation of New York Penal Law (“NYPL”) § 220.39(1). In 13 January of 2012, Pascual appeared by counsel before an IJ 14 and conceded removability based on the possession crime, but 15 challenged removability based on an aggravated felony 16 conviction. In an oral decision, the IJ ordered Pascual 17 removed to the Dominican Republic, finding that the 18 Government established removability based on Pascual’s 19 Connecticut and New York convictions. The IJ also found 20 that the New York conviction was an aggravated felony and as 21 such, Pascual was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of 22

3removal. Pascual appealed this decision to the BIA, which 1 affirmed. Pascual now seeks review in this Court. 2 3

**DISCUSSION** 4 Although this Court lacks jurisdiction to review final 5 orders of removal against aliens convicted of an aggravated 6 felony, see8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), we have jurisdiction 7 to review constitutional claims or questions of law, 8 including whether a specific conviction constitutes an 9 aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Pierre v. 10 Holder , 588 F.3d 767, 772 (2d Cir. 2009). We review 11 interpretations of law and the application of law to fact de 12

novo . SeeAlsol v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 207, 210 (2d Cir. 13 2008). A determination that Pascual’s conviction under NYPL 14 § 220.39 constitutes an aggravated felony, however, results 15 in the mandatory dismissal of Pascual’s appeal. See Higgins 16 v. Holder, 677 F.3d 97, 100 (2d Cir. 2012). 17 This Court has not previously decided whether a 18 conviction under NYPL § 220.39 , a Class B felony, 19 constitutes an aggravated felony conviction. See 20 Montesquieu v. Holder , 350 F. App’x 569, 571 (2d Cir. 2009). 21 Some district courts in this Circuit have ruled that it is. 22

4See Del Orbe v. Holder , 12 CIV. 1057 PAE, 2012 WL 3826182, 1 at *3-4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2012); United States v. Minotta2 Caravalle , 5:10-CR-14-01, 2010 WL 4975643, at *5 (D. Vt. 3 Nov. 30, 2010). We agree. Unpublished opinions in other 4 circuits are in accord. See, e.g. , Medina Lopez v. Attorney 5 Gen. of U.S. ,425 F. App’x 146, 149 (3d Cir. 2011); Griffith 6 v. Attorney Gen. of U.S. , 400 F. App’x 632, 635 (3d Cir. 7 2010); Clarke v. Holder , 386 F. App’x 501, 503 (5th Cir. 8 2010). 9 An “aggravated felony” is defined to include “illicit 10 trafficking in a controlled substance (as defined in section 11 802 of Title 21), including a drug trafficking crime (as 12 defined in section 924(c) of Title 18).” 8 U.S.C. § 13 1101(a)(43)(B). The Supreme Court has held that such a 14 state offense “constitutes a ‘felony punishable under the 15 Controlled Substances Act [“CSA” 21 U.S.C. § 801, et seq. ]’ 16 only if it proscribes conduct punishable as a felony under 17 that federal law.” Lopez v. Gonzales ,549 U.S. 47, 60 18 (2006). For a state drug offense to rank as an aggravated 19 felony, “it must correspond to an offense that carries a 20 maximum term of imprisonment exceeding one year under the 21

5CSA.” Martinez v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 113, 117–18 (2d Cir. 1 2008). 2 In deciding whether a state conviction corresponds to 3 an “aggravated felony,” we employ a “categorical approach” 4 under which “‘the singular circumstances of an individual 5 petitioner’s crimes should not be considered, and only the 6 minimum criminal conduct necessary to sustain a conviction 7 under a given statute is relevant.’” Gertsenshteyn v. U.S. 8 Dep’t of Justice, 544 F.3d 137, 143 (2d Cir. 2008) 9 (quoting Dalton v. Ashcroft , 257 F.3d 200, 204 (2d Cir. 10 2001)). The question, then, is whether the elements of NYPL 11 § 220.39 would be punishable as a felony under federal 12 criminal law. See Lopez , 549 U.S. at 57. The federal 13 statute analogous to NYPL § 220.39 is 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 14 which prohibits, inter alia, the distribution of, or 15 possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, 16 an offense punishable by a term of imprisonment greater than 17
one year. 18 Pascual relies on an unpublished Fifth Circuit decision 19 to argue that a conviction under of NYPL § 220.39 is not 20 categorically an aggravated felony because statutes that 21 punish “offers to sell,” see NYPL § 220.00(1), are not drug 22

6trafficking crimes under the CSA. Davila v. Holder , 381 F. 1 App’x 413, 416 (5th Cir. 2010). This Court, however, has 2 held that “distribution,” within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. § 3 841(a)(1) does not require a “sale” to take place: “The word 4 ‘distribute’ means ‘to deliver,’ [ 21 U.S.C.] § 802(11); and 5 ‘deliver’ means ‘the actual, constructive, or attempted 6 transfer of a controlled substance,’ [ 21 U.S.C.] § 802(8).” 7 United States v. Wallace , 532 F.3d 126, 129 (2d Cir. 2008) 8 (emphasis added). Therefore, even if Pascual did no more 9 than offer or attempt to sell cocaine, the state offense 10 would be conduct punishable as a federal felony, thus 11 rendering it an aggravated felony. 12 As a result of the BIA’s correct finding that Pascual 13 was convicted of an aggravated felony, this Court lacks 14 jurisdiction over his petition for review, and we must grant 15 the Government’s motion to dismiss. Accordingly, we do not 16 consider Pascual’s additional claims, including the IJ’s 17 denial of a continuance. Cf . Blake v. Gonzales , 481 F.3d 18 152, 162-63 (2d Cir. 2007) (declining to address challenges 19 to IJ’s denial of a continuance after concluding that the 20 Court lacked jurisdiction over petitioner’s petition for 21 review due to the BIA’s aggravated felony finding). 22

7For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 1 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 2

8