N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SOLOM ON B ELAC HEW M ENGESHA, Pe titione r,
v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 08-74316 Age n c y No. A029-496-524
M EM O R ANDUM *

SOLOM ON B ELAC HEW M ENGESHA, AKA Solom on B . M e nge sha , Pe titione r,
v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 11-70664 Age n c y No. A029-496-524

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

14, 2014 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED
AUG 12 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.B e fore : M c KEOW N a nd M
. SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s , a n d R OB AR T, Distric t Judge
. ** Solom on M e n g e sha

pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l of a n Im m igration Judge ’ s de c ision finding him

re m o v a ble ba se d on his c onvic tion for a c ontrolle d substa

nc e viola tion
and de ny i ng his a

pplic ations for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l , a n d c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l. M e nge sha

argue s tha

t the B IA wa s not pe rm itte d to re ly on fa c ts
a lle ge d in thec ha

rging doc um e nt to c onc lude that his pre dic ate c onvic tion re late d to a fe de ra l c ontrolle d substa nc e . W e de ny

the pe tition for re vie w. M e nge sha

wa s c onvic te d unde r Ariz ona sta te la w of posse s sion of a

na rc otic drug. “ C ount 1” of the c rim ina l inform ation c ha rge s tha t M e nge sha

“ knowingly posse s se d or use d

c o c a ine ba se , a

na rc otic drug.” The judgm e nt sta te s tha t M e n ge sha

ple a de d guilty

to the offe nse of “ C o unt 1: Posse ssion of Na rc o tic Drugs.” “ [W ] he re . . . the a bstra c t of judgm e nt or m inute orde r spe c ifie s tha t a de fe nda nt ple a de d guilty

to a pa rtic ula r c ount of thec rim ina l c om pla int or indic tm e nt, we c an c onside r the fa c ts a l le ge d in tha t c ount.” C

abantac v . Holde r , 736 F.3d 787, 793–94 (9th C i r. 2013) (pe r c uriam ). B e c a use the judgm e nt spe c ifie s tha

t M e nge sha

ple a de d guilty to “ C ount 1,”the B IA did not e rr in

** The Honora

ble Ja m e s L. R o ba

rt, Distric t Judgefor the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington, sitting by de signa tion. 2c onside ring the fa c ts a lle ge d in “ C ount 1” of the inform ation to c onc lude tha t the substa nc e unde rly ing M e nge sha ’ s c onvic tion wa s c oc a ine ba se , a c ontrolle d substa nc e unde r fe de ra l la

w. The re fore , the B IA did not e rr in de t e rm ining tha t M e n ge sha

wa s re m ova

ble
. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1227 (a )(2)(B )(i). To be e ligiblefor c anc e lla tion of re m o va l a

nd a sy lum , M e nge sha be ars the burde n of showing tha

t his prior c onvic tion for a tte m pte d ra pe wa s not a

n
a ggrav at e d fe lony
. Young v . Holde r , 697 F.3d 976, 989 (9th C ir. 2012); se e 8 U.S.C . § 1229b(a)(3); id. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), (B )(i). A c o nvic tion tha t qua l ifie s a s
an a g grav ate d fe lony pre c lude s c anc e lla tion of re m ova l and a sy lum e ve n if tha t
c onvic tion wa s othe rwise wa ive d a s a re m o va bility ground. Be c k

e r v . Gonzale

s , 473 F.3d 1000, 1003–04 (9th C ir. 2007). M e nge sha

doe s not dispute

tha t at le a st one subse c tion of thedivisible Ore gon sta

tute unde r whic h he wa s c onvic te d m e e ts the fe de ra l ge n e ric de finition of ra p e . Se e O .R .S. § 163.375(a); 8 U.S.C § 1101(a)(43)(A),(U). Nothing in the
re c o rd of c o nvic tion shows tha t M e n ge sha

wa s not c o nvic te d unde r this subse c tion. An inc onc lusivere c ord, howe ve r, is insuffic i e nt to sa tisfy an a lie n’ s burde n of proof. Young , 697 F.3d a t 989. The re fore , the B IA did not e rr in de ny i ng M e n ge sha ’ s a

pplic ations for c a

nc e lla tion of re m ova l a

nd a s y lum
. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D. 34Me nge

sha v . Holde r , 08-74316+ M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge , disse nting: I re spe c tfully

disse nt from

the m a jority ’ s de n ia l of the pe tition for re vie w. B e c a use M e nge s ha

ple a d e d guilty

to the am e nde d c h arge in the ple a a gre e m e nt, whic h did not spe c ify

a drug, the B IA e rre d in finding tha t his 1998 c onvic tion wa s
a viola tion of a la wre lating to a

c ontrolle d

substa nc e . Our c a se la

w e m pha s iz e s tha

t “ [t] he gove rnm e nt m

ust proveby

c le ar,
une quivoc a l, a

nd c onvinc ing e vide nc e tha t the fa c ts a lle ge d a s grounds of [re m ova bility ] are true ,” inc luding thedrug unde rly ing thesta te c onvic tion. RuizVidal v . Gonzale

s , 473 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th C ir. 2007) (inte rna l quota tion
om i tte d). “ [S] pe c ulat [ing] a s to thenature of the substa nc e ,” is “ not e n ough” for the g ove rnm e nt to m e e t “ its burde n of proving tha t the c onduc t of whic h the de fe nda nt wa s c onvic te d c onstitute s a pre dic ate offe nse . . . .” Id. at 1079. Ge ne ra lly , “ whe re . . . the a bstra c t of judgm e nt or m inute orde r spe c i fie s tha t
a de fe nda nt ple a de d guilty

to a pa rtic ula r c ount of thec rim ina l c o m pla int or indic tm e nt, we c an c onside r the fa c ts a l le ge d in tha t c ount.” C

abantac v . Holde r , 736 F.3d 787, 793–94 (9th C i r. 2013) (pe r c uriam ). Howe ve r, we m ust “ c onside r the c ha rging doc um e nt s i n c onjunc t ion with theple a a g re e m e nt, the tra

nsc ript of a ple a proc e e ding, or thejudgm e nt to de te rm i ne whe the r the de fe nda nt ple d guilty

to the e le m e nts of thege ne ric c rim e .” Unite d State s v . Valdav inos-Torre

s , 704 F.3d 

# FIL ED
AUG 12 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS679, 687 (9th C ir. 2012) (quoting Ruiz-Vidal , 473 F.3d a t 1078). The m odifie d c ate g oric a l a pproa c h spe c ific a lly

foc use s on the fa c ts to whic h the d e fe nda

nt a c tua lly

ple a d e d. Se eValdav inos-Torre s , 704 F.3d a

t 687. Inde e d,
we have e m

pha siz e d tha

t “ [b] y itse lf, the [i] nform ation c onta i n[s] the e le m e nts of the c rim e the gove rnm e nt se t [ s ] out to prove ; it [doe s] not e sta blish thee l e m e nts to whic h [a de fe nda nt] a c tua lly

a dm it[s] in his guilty

ple a .” Unite d State

s v . Ve lasc o Me d ina , 305 F.3d 839, 852 (9th C ir. 2002). He re , M e nge sha did not ple a d guilty to the origina l c ha rge in the inform at ion; ra

the r, he ple a de d guilty to the am e nde d c ha rge in the ple a

a g re e m e nt. The ple a a gre e m e nt a

m e nde d the c ha

rging doc um e nt, re pla c ing there fe re nc e to posse s sion of c oc a ine with posse ssion of na rc otic drugs. The ple a a gre e m e nt provide s: “ Ple a : The De fe nda nt a gre e s to ple a d GUILTY to: C OUNT 1: Posse s sion of na

rc otic drugs, a

c la ss 4 fe lony

. . . .,” without a

ny re fe re n c e to
c oc a ine . The ple a a gre e m e nt a lso sta te s: “ This a gre e m e nt se rve s to ame nd the
c om pla i nt or inform ation, to c h argethe offe nseto w hic h the De fe ndant ple ads , w ithout the

filing of any

additional ple

ading. ” (Em

pha sis a dde d .) And the judgm e nt re fle c ts the la

ngua ge of c ount 1 from

the ple a a gre e m e nt— it sta

te s tha t M e n ge sha

is guilty of “ the c rim e of: OFFENSE: C ount I: Posse ssion of Na rc otic Drugs,” and doe s not spe c ify c oc a i ne . Ac c ordingly , we m ay not re fe r ba c k to the

2inform at ion for thefa c t tha t the unde rly ing substa

n c e wa s c oc a ine , be c a

use the inform at ion wa s a

m e nde d by the ple a

a gre e m e nt. The re fore , the gove rnm e nt c annot une quivoc a lly “ c onne c t the re fe re nc e s” to
c oc a ine in the inform ation with M e nge sha ’ s c onvic tion, be c a use the ple a
a gre e m e nt a

m e nde d the inform ation. Ruiz-Vidal , 473 F.3d a t 1079. He re , a s in Ruiz-Vidal , the re c o rd c onta ins no doc um e nts tha t re v e a l the fa c ts unde rly ing the ple a (i.e
. , the spe c ific drug to whic h M e nge sha ple a de d), be c a

use the ple a
a gre e m e nt a

m e nde d the inform ation a nd re m ove d a

ny re fe re nc e to c o c a ine
. Se eid. The re c ord thus une quivoc a lly shows only

tha t M e nge sha

ple a de d guilty

to posse s sion of na

rc otic drugs. Ac c ordingly , the gove rnm e nt ha s not prove n by c l e ar, une quivoc a l, a

nd
c onvinc i ng e vide nc e tha

t M e nge sha

ple a d e d guilty to posse ssion of c oc a ine . The B IA thus e rre d in finding tha t M e nge sha ’ s 1998 c onvic tion wa s a viola t ion of a la w re lating to a

c o ntrolle d substa

nc e , a nd tha t he wa s re m o va

ble
. I re spe c tfully

disse nt.

3