N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ALB ER TO ULISES HERNANDEZM UNOZ, Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-72542 Age n c y No. A089-296-568
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d De c e m

be r 14, 2017 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : REINHAR

DT, GILM AN, *** and WARDLAW , C i rc uit Judge s. 

# F IL ED DEC 14 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble R ona ld Le e Gilm a

n , Unite d State s C irc uit Judgefor the U .S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Sixth C irc u it, sitting by de signa tion.He rnande z -M unoza pplie d for a djustm e nt of sta tus to la wful pe rm ane nt
re side nt unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1255(i). B e c a use he wa s ina d

m issible due to a

single
c onvic tion for posse ssion of a sm a ll a m o unt of m a

rijua na , se e 8 U.S.C
. § 1182(a )(2)(A)(i)(II), He rnan de z -M unoz a lso a pplie d for a wa i ve r of ina d m issibility

unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1182(h). On dire c t e x am ination, He rnande z M unoz ’ s own la

wy e r e lic ite d a dm issions from He rnande z -M unoztha

t he ha d use d
m arijua na on num e rous prior oc c a sions. TheIJ found tha t He rnande z -M unozwa s ine l igible for a

wa ive r of ina dm issibility be c a u s e he ha d suppose dly a dm itte d to fa c t s c o nstituting the

e sse n tia l e le m e nts of num e rous c o unts of m arijua na posse s sion
. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1182(a )(2)(A)(i). Howe ve r, the IJ a lso “ note [d] tha t
we re it not for the se a dm issions, the C ourt would not he sita te in gra nting R e sponde nt’ s a djustm e nt of sta tus a nd 212(h) wa ive r.” It is we ll-e sta

blishe d unde r both C a l ifornia and fe de ra l la

win this c irc uit tha

t
use of a drug doe s not ne c e ssa

rily im ply posse ssion of tha

t drug. R a t he r, use is at most c irc um sta

ntia l e vide nc e of posse ssion. Se e Unite d State s v . Martin , 984 F.2d 308, 311 n.5 (9th C ir. 1993) (c i ting Unite d State s v . Blac k ston , 940 F.2d 877, 883 (3d C ir. 1991)); Flore

s-Are l lano v . I.N

.S. , 5 F.3d 360, 363 n.5 (9th C ir. 1993); Pe oplev . Morale

s , 25 C a l. 4th 34, 44 (2001); Pe o p le v . Palasc hak

, 9 C a l. 4th 1236, 1240-41 (1995); Pe oplev . Spann , 187 C a l. App. 3d 400, 401-06 (1986);
2Pe oplev . Ay ala , 334 P.2d 61, 63 (C a l. Dist. C t. App. 1959). In fa c t , in its

supple m e nta l brie f the gove rnm e nt a c knowle dge s tha t use is only

c irc um sta

ntia l
e vide nc e of posse ssion. The re fore , He rna nde z -M unoz ’ s a d

m issions to using
m arijua na we re n o t a dm i ssions to “ a c ts whic h c onstitute the e sse n tial e le m e nts of”
m arijua na posse ssion. 8 U.S.C
. § 1182(a )(2)(A)(i) (e m pha sis a dde d). 1 The gove rnm e n t a

rgue s tha t by a dm itting to a c ts whic h c onstitute
c irc um s ta ntia l e vide nc e of m arijua

na posse ssion, He rnande z -M unoza ssum e d a burde n to prove that he did not posse ss m arijua na on e a c h of those oc c a sions. This
argum e nt is c ontra dic te d by the pla in te xt of the sta

tute . He rnande z -M unozis ina d m issible unde r the re l e va

nt provision only

if he a dm i tte d to the e sse ntia l
e le m e nts of m arijua

na posse ssion. He did not a dm it to those e sse ntia l e le m e nts. He ha s the re fore c arrie d his burde n to show his e ligibility for re lie f. The pe tition for re vie w is gra nte d a nd the c a se is re m ande d

to the B IA for furthe r proc e e dings c onsiste nt with this disposition. G RANT E D and RE M ANDE D.

1 The gove rnm e nt a lso a c knowle dge s tha t “ it is not . . . a

viola t ion of C a lifornia [la w] to use or be unde r the influe nc e of m arijua na . Nor is it te c hnic a lly a viola tion of fe de ra l la

w to use a c ontrolle d substa

nc e .” 3