2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

12-19-2008 

# E vanson v . Atty Ge n U SA
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 07-2509

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin
. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" E va n s on v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 6. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/6P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 07- 2509

___________ WI S T E R E VANS ON

Pet i t i oner

v.

ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

___________ P eti ti o n fo r R ev iew o f a n O rde r o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( N o. A 37- 592- 428)

___________ A r gued Sept ember 11, 2008 Be f o r e : SLOV I TER, FUEN TES, a n d ALD I SERT,

C i r cui tJ udges
( Fi l ed: D ece m ber19, 2008 )2 M ar t i n A

. K as cava ge, E s q. ( A r gued) Schoener& K as cava ge 400 M ar ketSt r eet , Sui t e 420 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106- 0000

A t t or neyforPet i t i oner R i char d M

. E vans , E s q. M i chel l e G

. L at our , E s q. V i r gi ni a M

. L um , E s q. K ohs ei U gum or i , E s q. U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on P. O

. B ox 878 B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D C 20044- 0000 A t t or ney s forR es pondent

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge: W i s t er E v ans on, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of T r i ni dad and T o b a g o , p led g u iltyto p o ss e ss io n o f m a riju a n a w ith in te n t to d e liv e r a n d c rim in a l co n sp ir a c yin v io latio n o f P e n n sy lv a n ia l aw . A ft ert he s t at e j udge s ent ence d hi m t o pr obat i on and c o m m u n ityse rv ice , the D e p a rtm e n t o f H o m e lan d S e c u rity ( “D H S”) comm ence d r emoval p r ocee di ngs . T he I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) found t hat E vans on’ s offe ns e di d notcons t i tut e an a g g ra v a te d f

e lo n ya n d g ra n ted c a n c e llatio n o f re m o v a l. H ow ever , bas ed on i nfor m at ion f ound onl yi n a s ent enci ng document , t he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s (“B I A ”) found t hatt he off

ens e cons t i tut ed an a ggr avat ed fe l on y and orde r ed rem o v al. F o r the reaso n s that fo ll o w , w e co n clud e tha t th e B IA err ed i n fai l i ng t o appl yt he modi fied ca te gor i cal appr oach s et for th i n T ay l orv. U ni t ed St at es , 495 U

. S. 57 5 ( 1990) , and S hepar d v. U ni t ed St at es , 544 U

. S. 13 ( 2005) , and ther efor e e rre d w h e n it co n sid e re d E v a n so n ’s s e n ten c in g d o c u m e n t to det er m i ne w hether he had been convi ct ed of an aggr avat ed fel ony . W e w i l l t hus gr antt he Pet i t i on and re m and forfur t herO for i i s t he mot herof Evanson’ s y ounges tchi l d. A t the 1 t i m e, E vans on w as l i vi ng w i t h St ar l et t e Sum pt er , t he mot herof hi s ot herchi l dr en. 3 proceed i ng s. I. W i s t er E vans on, 42, w as admi t t ed t o t he U ni t ed St at es as a perm anent reside n t i n D ece m berof 1981. I n M ar ch 2005, E vans on w as a pas s enger in a carow ned and dr i ven by St ephani e O fo ri , hi s gi r l fr i end, w hen theyw er e hi tbya drunk d riv e r. P o lice re sp o n d in g to th e a c c id e n t f o u n d m a riju a n a in 1 t he ca rand arr es t ed Evanson. A ccor di ng t o t he A ff idavi tof Pr obabl e C aus e at t ache d t o t he Pol i ce Cri m i nal C om pl ai nt , t he m ar i j uana w as i n a l ar ge bl ack tr as h bag found on the bac k s eat o f t h e c a r a n d wa s d i v i d e d i n t o o n e l a r g e z i p - l o c k b a g , t wo m edi um - s i zed z i p- l ock bags , and one- hundr ed s m al l zi p- l ock bags

. T he C r i m i nal C om pl ai ntal s o al l eged thata mar i j uana c ig a re tte w a s f

o u n d in E v a n s o n ’s p o c k e t. E vans on pl ed gui l t yi n Penns y l vani a s t at e courtt o a cr i m i nal i nfor m at i on char gi ng hi m w i t h comm i t t i ng a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns e i n v iolat i on of 35 Pa. St at
. A nn. § 780- 1 1 3 ( a ) ( 3 0 ), an d c rim in a l co n sp ira c yto c o m m it th a t o f f e n se in vi ol at i o n o f

1 8 Pa

. St a t
. Ann

. § 9 0 3

. 3 5 Pa

. St a t
. Ann

. § 7 80- 11 3 st at es: ( a) T he fo ll ow i ng act s and the ca us i ng t her eof w i t hi n t he C om m onw eal th ar e her ebypr ohi bi t ed:

. . . . ( 30) E xceptas authori zed byt hi s act , t he m a n u f a c tu re , d e liv e ry , or possessi on w i th in ten t to m anufa ctur e ordel i ver , a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance by a p erso n n o t r e g istered u n d er this ac t, o r a pr act i t i onernotr egi ste r ed orl i cens ed byt he appr opr i at e St at e boar d, orknow i ngl ycr eat i ng, d e liv e ri n g o r p o s s e s s in g w ith in te n t to d e liv e r, a count er fei tcontr ol l ed s ubs t ance . M irr or i ng t he l anguage of the s t atut e, t he i nfor m at i on al l eged t hat Evanson “ di d m anufa ctur e, del i ver , orpos s es s w i t h an in ten t to m a n u f

a c tu re o r d e liver a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e (s) , to w it: M A R IJ U A N A

. ” (A dm i nis t rat i ve R eco rd (A

. R

. ) 238.) T hese c o u n ts o f th e in f o rm a tio n d id n o t co n ta in a n ya d d iti o n a l d e tail4 a b o u t th e o f

f e n s e s . E vans on w as s ent ence d t o thi r t y - s i x m ont hs ’ pr obat i on and comm uni t ys er vi ce. T he j udgm entof s ent ence s t at ed that E v an so n w as c h arg ed w ith “ in te n t t o d eli v er o r m an u fa cture m arij u an a .48 4 1 lbs d rug sch ed u le I. ” (A

. R

. 2 5 2

. ) F ol l ow i ng hi s s ent enci ng, D H S com m ence d r emoval pr ocee di ngs agai ns tE vans on. Specifi cal l y , D H S char ged E v an so n w ith rem o v ab il ityu n d er 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 2 7 (a)(2)(A )(i ii ), w hi ch pr ovi des tha t“[a n] al i en w ho i s convi ct ed of a n a g g ra v a te d f

e l o n ya t a n ytim e a f

te r a d m is s io n is d e p o rt a b le ,” and under8 U

. S. C

. § 1 227( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) , w hi ch pr ovi des t hatan al i en w ho atanyt i m e af t eradmi s s ion has been convi ct ed of a vi ol at i on of ( ora conspi r acyor at t empt t o vi olat e) anyl aw orr egul at i on of a S tat e , th e U n it ed S tat es, or a fo reign co u n try re latin g to a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e (a s d e f in e d in se c tio n 8 0 2 o f

T itl e 2 1 ), o th e r t h a n a sin g le offe ns e i nvol vi ng pos s es s i on for one’ s ow n us e of 3 0 g ra m s o r l e s s o f

m a ri ju a n a , is d e p o rt a b le

.

E v a n s o n d e n ie d th e c h a rg e s o f re m o v a b ility. A tE vans on’s fi r s thear i ng, t he I J not ed thathe w as r equi r ed t o cons i der“w hat [E vans on w as ] found gui l t yof or pl eade d gui l t y t o” r ather t han t he fac t s of the under l y i ng offe ns e. ( A

. R

. 70. ) T he IJ t hen hel d t hatt he C r i m i nal C om pl ai ntw as not “s uffi ci entevi dence ” of the el ement s t o w hi ch Evanson ple d g u i l t yb e c a u s e i th a d b e e n s u p e r c e d e d b ya n i n f o r ma t i o n . ( A. R. 69, 70- 71. ) T he hear i ng w as adj our ned t o gi ve the G overnm ent an opport uni t yt o s uppl ement t he r ecor d w i t h evi dence t hat w oul d e s t a b l i s h t h e e l e me n t s o f t h e o f f e n s e t o whi c h Ev a n s on pl ed gui l t y , namel ya copy of t he i nfor m at i on and a tr ans cr i ptof E v a n s o n ’ s p l e a c o l l o q u y. A ta hea r i ng i n D ec em b er 2006, t he I J r evi ew ed the cr i m i nal i nfor m at i on— no t r ans cr i ptof the pl ea c ol l oquyw as pr es ent ed des pi t e the I J ’ s s ugges t i on— and found that i tdi d not estab li sh that E v an so n ’s of fe n se in v o lv e d p ay m en t. T h e IJ t herefore fou nd t hat Ev anson ’s off ense “co uld qualifyas a F ed era l m isde m ea n o r. ” (A

. R

. at 82

. ) A cco r d i n g l y , t h e I J f

o u n d t h a t t h e Gov e r n me n t h a d not es t abl i s hed thatE vans on had b ee n convi ct ed of a n aggr avat edA n a lien w h o h a s b e e n c o n v icte d o f a n a g g ra v a ted f e lo n yis 2 notel i gi bl e form os tdi s cr et i onaryr eli ef

. C onver s el y , an al i en w ho w as convi ct ed of vi ol at i ng a l aw r el at ed t o a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance i s r emovabl e, but m ay s eek di s cr et i onaryreli ef inclu d ing ca n ce ll ati o n o f re m o v al un d er 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 2 9 b (a). 5 fel onyand di s m i s s ed t hat count of the r emovabi l i t ypr ocee di ng. T h e IJ c o n c lu d e d th a t E v a n so n w a s n o n e th e les s re m o v a b le pur s uantt o 8 U

. S. C

. § 1227( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) beca us e he ha d been convi ct ed of vi ol at i ons of l aw s orr egul at i ons r el at ed t o a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance . 2 E vans on t hen pr es ent ed an a ppl i ca t i o n f orcanc el l at i on of r emoval under8 U

. S. C

. § 1229b( a) , w hi ch provi des r el i ef f r om r emoval forcert ai n l ong- t i m e perm anentr es i dent s . A ta hea r i ng o n th e a p p lica tio n , E v a n so n tes tifie d th a t th e n ig h t b e f o re h is arrest a frien d p lace d a b ag o f m arij u an a in the tru n k o f O fo ri ’s ca r an d fo rgo t t o take itw ith h im w h en h e g o t ou t of the c ar. E vans on deni ed that he knew t hatt he mar i j uana w as l efti n t he caror t he vol um e of m ar i j uana. T he next day , O for i w as dr i vi ng E vans on hom e w hen t hey w er e hi t bya drunk dr i ver . A pol i ce o f f ice r w itn e ss e d th e a c c id e n t an d a sk e d O f o ri to f o llo w h im w hi l e he pur s ued the dr i ver . O nce the dr i verw as s t opped, a n o th e r of

f ice r i n d ica ted th a t h e sm e lled m a riju a n a a n d a sk e d to s ear ch O for i ’ s car . T he off i cerfound the bag of

m ar i j uana a nd E vans on w as arr es t ed. E vans on admi t t ed ca s ual m ar i j uana us e, butdeni ed thathe eve r s ol d m ar i j uana orus ed mar i

j uana i n fr ont o f h is c h ild re n . E vans on al s o t es t i fi ed abouthi s l engthyr es i dence i n t he U ni t ed St at es . I n addi t i on t o s ervi ng as a re s er vi s t i n t he U ni t ed S tate s a rm e d f

o r c e s, E v a n so n h a s b e e n g a in f u llye m p lo y e d in t he hea l t h car e fi el d for atl eas tt en y ear s . A l s o, he has c o m p lete d a n u m b e r o f c o u rse s to w a rd s a n u n d e rg ra d u a te d e g r e e i n c o m p u t e rs c i e n c e f r o m S t
. J o s e p h ’ s U n i v e r s i t y. E v a n so n tes tifie d th a t h e h a s thr e e c h ild re n , a g e s 1 5 , 5 , an d 2 , all U n ited S tate s c iti z e n s. A t th e tim e h e w a s ta k e n in to i m m i gr at i on cus t ody , E vans on l i ved w i t h t he ol dert w o chi l dr en and t heir m other and saw t he y ou ng estchil d o n a regu l ar basi s. E v an so n su p p o rt ed a ll th ree ch il d ren . F o ll o w ing E v an so n ’s t es t i m ony , t he I J cr edi t ed Evanson’ s acc ountof the i nci dentand g ra n ted h is re q u e st f

o r c a n c e llatio n o f

re m o v a l b a se d p rim a rily on h is cl os e r el at i ons hi p w i t h hi s y oung U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen chi l dr en.T h e G o v e rn m e n t h a s f iled a m o tio n to d ism iss b a se d o n its 3 a r g u m e n tt h a tE v a n s o n w a s c o n v i c t e d o f a n a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n y. Ho we v e r , we wi l l d e n y t h a t mo t i o n f o rt h e r e a s o n s t h a tf

o l l o w. 6 T he G overnm entappea l ed t o t he B I A

. I n i t s deci s i on, t he B IA fou nd t hat Ev anson had been con v ict ed o f an o ffen se “i nvol vi ng pos s es s i on w i t h inte ntt o del i verorm anufa ctur e a contr ol l ed s ubs t an ce , m ar i huana, i n t he amount of . 4841 pounds

. ” ( A pp. 6. ) T he B I A di d notdi s cus s how i tdet er m i ned t hat E vans on’ s offe ns e i nvol ved

. 4841 pound s o f m ar i j uana. “B ase d o n the larg e q u an ti ty o f m arij u an a inv o lved , ” the B o ard concl uded thatE vans on’ s convi ct i on w as puni s habl e as a fe l ony u n d e r th e f

e d e ra l C o n tr o lle d S u b s ta n c e s A c t, 2 1 U .S .C . § 84 1(a) , and t hu s w as an ag gravat ed fe l on y . (A p p . 6

. ) A s a r es ul t , t he B I A found thatE vans o n w as notel i gi bl e for canc el l at i on of r emoval and or der ed hi m r emoved. E vanson p e t i t i o n s f

o rr e v i e w. II. W e have j ur i s di ct ion t o det er m i ne de novo w hether E vans on’ s convi ct i on cons t i tut ed an a ggr avat ed fel ony , butnot t o r e v i e w t h e BI A’ s e x e r c i s e o f i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n g r a n t i ng or d en y ing ca n ce lla ti o n o f re m o v al. 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(C ), (D ). 3 E van son co ntends th a t h is c o n v ictio n u n d e r P e n n sy lv a n ia s t at e l aw di d notcon s t i tut e an a ggr avat ed fe l ony . T he G ov ernm ent ar gu es that Ev anso n’ s c ont rol l ed sub st ance o ffen se w as an aggr avat ed fel ony , and thathe i s t her efor e i nel i gi bl e for d isc re tio n a ryre lief

f ro m a n o rd e r o f

re m o v a l. T o d e ter m in e if E v a n so n h a s b e e n c o n v icte d o f a n a g g ra v a ted f e lo n y , w e b e g in w i t h i t s defi ni t i on undert he I m m i gr at i on and N at i on al i t yA ct (“ IN A ” ). T h e d e f

in iti o n o f “ a g g ra v a ted f e lo n y ” in c lu d e s, in r el evantpar t , “i l l i ci tt r aff i cki ng i n a c o nt r ol l ed s ubs t ance ( as d e f i n e d i n 8 0 2 o f Ti t l e 2 1 ) , i n c l u d i n g a d ru g t r a f f i c k i n g c r i me (a s d e f in e d in s e c tio n 9 2 4 ( c ) o f T itle 1 8 ).” 8 U .S .C . § 1101( a) ( 43) ( B)

. I n tu rn , s ect i on 924( c) defi nes “drug t r aff i cki ng cri m e” a s “anyfel onypuni s habl e undert he C ont r ol l ed Su b s t a n c e s Act

. ” Th u s , a s t a t e d ru g c o n v i c t i o n c o n s t i tu t e s an aggr avat ed fel ony i f ( a) i tw oul d be puni s habl e as a fe l onyunder t he fe der al C ont r ol l ed S ubs t ance s A ct , or ( b) i ti s a fe l onyunder sta te la w a n d in c lu d e s a n ill icit tra f f ick in g e lem e n t. A ccor di ngl y , w e appl yt w o i ndepend en t t es t s fordet er m i ni ng w h e t h e ra s t a t e d r u g o f f e n s e c o n s t i tu t e s a n a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n y:7 t he “i l l i ci tt raf

ficki ng el ement ” r out e and the “hypot het i cal fede r al fel ony ” r out e. G ar ci a v. A t t ’ y G en. , 462 F. 3d 287, 291 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( ci t i ng G erbi erv. H ol m es , 280 F. 3d 297, 313 ( 3d C ir

. 2 0 0 2 )). A

. H ypot het i cal Feder al Fel ony U n d er the h yp o thetical fe d era l felon yrou te, w e c o m p are t he off ens e of c onvi ct i on t o t he fe der al C ont r ol l ed Subs t ance s A c t to d e ter m in e if it is a n a lo g o u s to a n o f f e n se u n d e r th a t A c t. T h e f e d e ra l C o n tro lled S u b sta n c e s A c t m a k e s it a f e lo n yto know i ngl yori n t e n t i o n a l l y“ ma n u f a c tu r e , d i s t r i but e, ordi s pens e, o r p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to m a n u f a c tu re , d is tr ib u te , o r d is p e n s e ,” a n ya m o u n t o f m a riju a n a , ex c e p t th a t “d istrib u tin g a sm a ll am o u n t of

m arihu an a f

o r n o re m u n era ti o n ” is a m isde m ea n o r. 21 U

. S. C

. § 841( a) , ( b) ( 1) ( D ) , ( b) ( 4)

. A s t at e mar i j uana convi ct i on i s t her efor e onl y equi val ent t o a fe der al drug fel ony i f the off ens e i nvol ved paym entorm or e than a smal l amount of m arij u an a. S ee S teele v

. B lack m an , 2 3 6 F

. 3 d 1 3 0 , 1 3 7 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ) (“ S in c e d istrib u tio n o f m a riju a n a w ith o u t re m u n e ra tio n is n o t in h e re n tlya f

e lo n y , itse e m s to u s th a t th e o n lya ltern a tiv e to s o r egar di ng i t cons i s t ent w i t h t he rul e of l eni t y w oul d be t o t r eat any§ 844 offe ns e i n t hi s cont extas a mi s demeanor

. ”) ; W i l s on v . A sh cro ft, 3 5 0 F

. 3 d 3 7 7 , 3 8 1 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ). In Je u n e v . A tt ’yG en . , w e c o n s id e re d w h ethe r a convi ct i on under35 Pa. St at
. A nn. § 780- 113( a) ( 30) w as anal ogous t o a vi ol at i on of 21 U

. S. C

. § 841( b) ( 1) ( D )

. 476 F. 3d 1 9 9 , 2 0 4 -0 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). W e f o u n d th a t d istrib u tin g a sm a ll amount of m ar i

j uana f orno r emuner at i on coul d be prosecut ed undert he Penns y l vani a s t atut e, and thu s t hatw e coul d not det er m i ne thati tw as equi val ent t o a feder al drug fel onyw i t hout m or e i nfor m at i on aboutt he convi ct i on. I d. W e re cogni ze t hat ot hercour t s have di s agr eed w i t h our vi ew of 21 U

. S. C

. § 841. See, e. g. , J ul ce v. M ukas ey , 530 F. 3d 30, 35 ( 1s t C i r . 2008) ( hol di ng t hata pet i t i onerbear s t he bur den of pr ovi ng t hata s t at e mar i j uana c onvi ct i on di d noti nvol ve r emu n erat i on t o es cape t he conc l us i on t hatt he convi ct i on amount ed t o a feder al fel ony ) ; I n r e A runa, 24 I

. & N

. D ec. 452, 458 n. 4 ( B

. I

. A

. 2008) ( decl i ni ng t o appl y St eel e t o cas es ar i s i ng out s i de of t he T hi r d C i r cui t )

. H ow ever , t he G overnm entm akes no ar gum ent t hatw e s houl d al t erourconcl us i on t hatdi s t r i but i on of a s m al l am o u n t of m ar i j uana w i t houtr emuner at i on i s not in h e re n tlya f

e d e ra l f e lo n y . A c c o r d in g ly , w e n e e d n o t re v isit t hi s i s s ue.8 B

. I l l i ci tT r aff

i cki ng E l ement U n dert he i l l i ci tt r aff

i cki ng el ement t es t , a s t at e fe l ony drug co nv i ct i on con st i tutes an ag gravat ed fe l on yi f i t con t ai ns a t r a f f i c k i n g e l e me n t
. Se e , e . g . , Gerb i e r , 2 8 0 F. 3 d a t3 0 5

- 0 6

. “ To cont ai n a tr aff

i cki ng el ement , a stat e fel onym us ti nvol ve ‘ t he unl aw ful t r adi ng or deal i ng of a cont r ol l ed s ubs t ance . ’ ” J eune, 47 6 F

. 3d at20 2 (quo t i ng G erbi er, 2 8 0 F .3 d at30 5); see al so St eel e, 236 F. 3d at135 ( “Ess ent i al t o t he conc eptof ‘ t r adi ng or deal i ng’ i s act i vi t yof a bus i nes s or m erc hantnatur e, t hus e x c lu d in g s im p le p o s s e s s io n o r tr a n s f e r w ith o u t c o n s id e ra tio n .” (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted)). I n G ar ci a, w e not ed t hatt he Penns y l vani a s t atut e “may en co m p ass c o n d u ct t h at do es n o t inv o lve tr ad ing o r de ali n g . In par t i c u l a r , i t i s n o t c l e a r t h a t e v e r y v i o l a t i o n of t he m anufa ctur i ng pr ovi s i on i nvol ves t r adi ng ordeal i ng. ” 462 F. 3d at 293 n. 9. I n J eune, w e cl ar i fi ed that“more t han the bar e fa ct o f c o n v ictio n ” u n d e r 3 5 P a . S tat. A n n . § 7 8 0 -1 1 3 (a )(3 0 ) is neede d t o s at i s fy t he i l l i ci t t r aff i cki ng el ement t es t
. 476 F. 3d at 20 4 (noti ng t hat “[m ]anufactur i ng m ari j uan a for personal use w o u ld a rg u a b ly n o t b e a n a g g ra v a te d f e lo n y ” ). A ccor di ngl y , under ei t her t he hypot het i cal fede r al fel ony t es t or t he i l l i ci tt r aff

i cki ng el ement t es t , a convi ct i on undert he P e n n s yl v a n i a s t a tu t e i s n o tn e c e s s a r i l y a n a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n y. T h u s, w e m u st d e ter m in e w h a t re c o rd s m a yb e c o n su lted to eval uat e a c onvi ct i on undert he Penns y l vani a s t atut e.

C

. C at egor i cal A ppr oach T o d e ter m in e w h e th e r a n o f f e n se o f c o n v ictio n a m o u n ts t o an aggr avat ed fel ony , i ncl udi ng by m eans of t he hypot het i cal f e d e r a l f e l o n ya n d i l l i c i t t r a f f i c k i n g e l e me n tt e s t s , we pr es um pt i vel yappl ya “form al cat egor i cal appr oach. ” Si ngh v. A s h crof t , 383 F. 3d 144, 161 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( s ynt hes i zi ng our a g g r a v a t e d f

e l o n yc a s e l a w)

. A fo r ma l c a t e g o r i c a l appr oach pr ohi bi t s us fr om anyr evi ew of the fa ctual bas i s foran under l y i ng convi ct i on. I d. at 147- 48. T hus , t o det er m i ne w hat re c o rd s w e m a yc o n su lt i n e v a lu a tin g E v a n so n ’s P e n n sy lv a n ia convi ct i on, we mu s td e t er m i ne w hethert he pr es um pt i on i n favor of the form al cat egor i cal appr oach appl i es , and i f not , how far w e mayd ep art f

rom i t
. W e begi n bycons i der i ng t he or i gi n of t he ca t egor i cal appr oach. T he Supr eme C our ts etfort h t he form al cat egor i cal appro ac h i n t he cont extof the A r m ed C ar eerC r i m i nal A ctSom e conf us i on has r es ul t ed fr om i ncons i s t entus e of the 4 phr as e “modi fi ed ca t egor i cal appr oach. ” See Co n te h v. G onzal es , 461 F. 3d 45, 54 ( 1s tC i r . 2006) ( des cr i bi ng di ffe r ent us es of the t er m )

. W e use the t er m t o m ean l ooki ng bey ond t he s t atut or y defi ni t i on, but onl y for t he purpos e of det er m i ni ng t he el ement s nece s s ar i l yfound bya j ur y , or admi t t ed bya def endant i n pl eadi ng gui l t y . N i

j haw an v. A t t ’ yG en. , 523 F. 3d 387, 393 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (“ T h e m o d if ied c a teg o ric a l ap p ro a c h e n tails sc ru tin y o f

th e n a tu re o f

th e c o n v ictio n itse lf

a n d th o se e lem e n ts t hatt he j ur ynece s s ar i l yfound thr ough an exa m i nat ion of j udi ci al r ecor d evi dence

. I f the j ur y di d notnece s s ar i l yfi nd t hat 9 ( “A C C A ”) , 18 U

. S. C

. § 924( e) ( 1)

. T ay l orv. U ni t ed St at es , 495 U

. S. 575 ( 1990)

. T he A C C A r equi r es an enha nced pe nal t yfor pos s es s i on of a f

i r earm w hen the def

endant has “thr ee pr evi ous convi ct i ons . . . for a vi ol entfel onyora s er i ous drug offe ns e, or both.” 18 U

. S. C

. § 924( e)

. “V i ol entfel ony ” i s defi ned as an offe ns e that “( i ) has as an el ement t he us e, at t empt ed us e, or threa tene d u se o f p h y sical fo rce a g a inst th e p erso n o f a n o ther; or ( i i ) i s b u r g l a r y , a r s o n , o r e x t o r t i o n , i n v o l v e s u s e of expl os i ves , or ot herw i s e i nvol ves conductt hatpr es ent s a s er i ous p o te n tia l r is k o f

p h y s ic a l in

ju ry to a n o th e r.” 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 (e )(2 )(B ). T a y lo r h a d b e e n c o n v icte d o f v io latin g a sta te b u rglarystatu te t h a t h a d a b roa d er d ef init ion than the C o u rt found C ongr es s i nt ended t o appl yt o t he t er m “bur gl ary ” as us ed i n t he A C C A

. See 495 U

. S

. at 5 7 8

- 79. T hus , i n T ay l or , t he C our tw as confr ont ed w i t h deci di ng “w h ethert he s ent enci ng co u rtin ap p ly ing § 9 2 4 (e) m u st l o o k o n lyto th e statu tory d ef ini t i ons of the pr i oroffe ns es , ” the form al cat egor i cal appr o ac h, “orw hethert he courtm aycons i derot herevi dence conce r ni ng t he def

endant ’ s pr i orcr i m es , ” the fa ctual appr oach. Id. at 60 0

. N o ti n g the lan g u ag e o f § 9 2 4 (e), legislat ive h ist o ry s uggesti ng “a c at egor i cal appr oach t o pr edi cat e off ens es , ” and “the pr act i cal di ffi cul t i es and pot ent i al unfai r nes s of a factual ap p roa ch , ” the S u p rem e C o u rtco n clud e d that a tri al co u rt s houl d gener al l y“l ook onl yt o t he fa ctof convi ct i on and the s t atut or ydefi ni t i on of the pr i oroffe ns e. ” I d. at600- 02. H ow ever , t he Supr eme C our tal s o hel d t hatitw as appr opr i at e “to go bey ond t he mer e fa ctof convi ct i on i n a narr ow r ange of cas es w her e a j ur yw as actual l yr equi r ed t o fi nd al l t he el ement s of [a n A C C A pr edi cat e o ff en s e]

. ” I d. at602. W e r efe rt o t hi s s econd s t ep of the Tay l oranal y sis a s t he m odi fi ed ca t egorical appr oach. I n par t i cul ar , i n T ay l ort he 4el ement, the ‘ convi ct i on’ w i l l notfi tw i thi n t he enha nced cat egory . ”)

. I n ot herw or ds , w e us e “modi fi ed ca t egor i cal a p p ro a c h ” to re f

e r to th e se c o n d s tep o f th e T a y lo r a n a ly sis ra th e r th a n to a b ro a d e r re v iew o f th e re c o rd o f

c o n v ictio n to d e ter m in e a p e tit io n e r’s u n d e rly in g c o n d u c t. 10 C o u rt h eld that w e m ayco n su ltthe c h arg ing d o cu m en t and jury i ns t ruct i ons i n addi t i o n to the s t atut or ydefi ni t i on t o det er m i ne w hatel ement s for m ed the b asis fora def endant ’ s under l y i ng convi ct i on. I d. at602. In S h ep ard v . U n it ed S tat es, 5 4 4 U

. S

. 1 3 , 1 9 -20 (20 0 5 ), t he C our text ended the modi fi ed ca t egor ical appr oach t o cas es reso lved b y g u ilty plea

. T h e C o u rtreit era ted th at a c o u rt appl y i ng § 924( e) m us tavoi d “evi dent i aryenqui r i es i nt o t he fac tual bas i s fort he ea r l i erconvi ct i on, ” i ns t ead f ocus i ng on w hether a “pl ea ha d ‘ nece s s ar i l y ’ r es t ed on” the el ement s of an A CC A pr e di c a t e of

fe ns e . I d. a t 20

- 21 ( qu ot i ng Tay l or , 49 5 U. S. a t 60 2). T hu s, t he C ou rt held t hat app ropri at e recor ds to co n side r i n e v a lu ati n g a p lead ed ca se a re the “statuto ry d e f in iti o n , ch a rg in g d o c u m e n t, w ritten p lea a g re e m e n t, t r ans cr i pt of t he pl ea col l oquy , and anyexpl i ci tfac tual fi ndi ng byt he tr i al j ud ge t o w hich the defe nd ant assent ed”— t he closest anal ogs t o t he m at er i al s appr oved i n T ay l or . 544 U

. S. at16, 20- 23 ( hol di ng t hat“a pol i ce r epor ts ubm i t t ed t o a loc al cour tas g ro u n d s f

o r i s s u in g a c o m p lain t” w a s n o t an a p p ro p ria te d o c u m e n t to c o n s id e r)

. L i ke t he A C C A , 8 U. S. C. § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i )

— t he s ect i on of t he I N A t hat r ender s an aggr avat ed fel on r emovabl e— r efe r s t o “[a ] nyal i en w ho i s convi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l ony ” ( emphasi s added) r athert han t o anyal i en w h o “h as c o m m itted” an ag g ra v a te d fe lon y . C f. In re V el azque z- H err er a, 24 I

. & N

. D ec. 503, 513 ( B

. I

. A

. 2008) ( “For near l y a ce ntur y , t he Feder al ci r cui tcour t s of appe al s have hel d t hatw her e a gro u n d of deport abi l i t yi s pr emi s ed on the exi s t ence o f a ‘ convi ct i on’ fora part i cul art ype of c r i m e, t he focus of the i m m i gr at i on author i t i es m u st be on t he cr i m e of w hi ch the al i en w as convi ct ed, t o t he exc l u sion of anyot her cr i m i nal or m or al l yr epr ehens i bl e ac t s he mayhave co mmi t t e d

. ” )

. Acc o r d i n g l y , we p r e s u mpt i v e l ya p p l yt he

“ f o rm a l ca teg o ric a l ap p ro a c h ” in e v a lu a tin g w h e th e r p re d ica te c o n v ic tio n s f

a ll w ith in th e d e f

in itio n o f

“ a g g ra v a te d f

e lo n y .” S ing h , 3 8 3 F

. 3 d at 16 1 ; se e also id. at 1 5 2 (no ti n g that T ay lor’s11 anal y s i s appl i es i n t he aggr avat ed f el onycont ext“bec aus e § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 3 ) [ th e se c tio n e n u m e ra tin g a g g ra v a te d f e lo n ies ] is si m i l ar t o 18 U

. S

. C

. § 924 (e) i n that i tt oo enu m erat es offen ses, convi ct i on of w hi ch pl ace s an al i en i n t he ca t egoryof

‘ aggr avat ed fe l on’ ”) ; G o n za les v

. D u en as-A lvare z, 54 9 U

. S. 183 ( 2007) ( appl y i ng t he Tay l orfr amew o rk in a ggr avat ed fe l ony co n text). A s i n t h e A C C A c o n t e x t , o u ra n a l ys i s i s n o ta l w a ys l i m i t ed t o t he form al cat egor i cal appr oach. C onfr ont ed w i t h a d isj u n cti v e statute o f c o n v ic ti o n , o n e in w h ich th ere are al t ernat i ve el ement s , w e appl yt he m odi fi ed ca t egor i cal appr oach s etfor t h i n T ay l or and S hepar d t o det er m i ne w hi ch of t he al t ernat i ve el ement s w as t he actual bas i s fort he under l y i ng c o n v ic tio n . S in g h , 3 8 3 F .3 d a t 1 6 2 -6 3 ; N ijh a w a n v . A tt’ yG e n ., 523 F. 3d 387, 393 ( 3d C i r . 2008) (no ti ng t hatt he modi fi ed cat egor i cal appr oach a ppl i es t o cas es i nvol vi ng “di vi s i bl e” statu tes o f c o n v ict ion ). W e depar t fart her fr om t he form al cat egor i cal appr oach onl yw her e the l anguage o f a pa r t i cul ars ubs ect i on of § 1101( a) ( 4 3 )— t he aggr avat ed fe l onyenumer at i ng s t atut e— “inv it es in q u iryinto ‘the u n d erly ing fa cts o f th e c a se.’” N ijh a w a n , 5 2 3 F .3 d a t 3 9 3 (e v a lu a tin g u n d e rly in g f a c ts to det er m i ne w hetherfr aud convi ct i on cons t i tute d aggr avat ed f e lo n y ). In p a rticu lar , a c a teg o ric a l ap p ro a c h d o e s n o t a p p lyto s ubs ect i ons t hati ncl ude “‘ i n w hi ch’ orot heranal ogous q u a lify in g lan g u a g e .” Id

. a t 3 9 1

. In th e se c a se s, o u r in q u iryis notl i m i t ed t o “fa ct s actual l yand nec es s ar i l y fo u n d b ey ond a r eas onabl e doubt by a j ur y or j udge. ” Id. at391- 96 ( ci t at i ons and i nt ernal q u o t a t i on m ar ks om i t t ed)

. A ccor di ngl y , w e may“l ook[] t o a w i derarr ayof r ecor ds t hatpos s es s a hi gh i ndi ci a of r el i abi l i ty , ” i ncl udi ng r ecor ds notper m i t t ed byt he modi fi ed c a te g o ri c a l a p p ro a c h . Id . a t 3 9 9

. I n G ar ci a, w e d eterm i ned that35 Pa. St at
. A nn. § 780- 113( a) ( 30) is di vi s i bl e bec aus e i tdes cr i bes “thr ee di s t i nct o f f enses: m anu fact ure, deli very , and po sses si on w i t h i ntent to d e liv e r o r m a n u f

a c tu re .” 4 6 2 F .3 d a t 2 9 3 n .9

. T h u s, w e h e ld t hatt he form al cat egor i ca l approa ch does notl i m i tour appl i cat i on of the i l l i ci tt r aff i cki ng el ement t es tt o t hi s s t atut e. Id. (not i ng t hat “i tapp ears t hat the sect i on m ayenco m pass con du ctt hat does no ti nv olve t radi ng or deal i ng ”); see al soIn Jeu n e, w e ap p li ed G arc ia an d loo k ed b ey o n d the s tatu tory 5 defi ni t i on i n appl y i ng t he hypot het i cal fede r al fel onyt es tt o 35 P a . S tat. A n n . § 7 8 0 -1 1 3 (a )(3 0 ). Je u n e , 4 7 6 F .3 d a t 2 0 5 . It i s no tcl ear that the P enn sy l van i a st atute i s di sjunct i ve in a sense t hati s r el evantt o t he i nqui r y u n d ert he hypot het i cal fede r al fel onyt es t
. See Si ngh, 383 F. 3d at163 ( hol di ng t hatr evi ew w as l i m i t ed t o for m al cat egor i cal appr oach w her e the s t atut e of c o n v ictio n w a s n o t d isju n c tiv e in a m e a n in g f u l w a y ). W h a t is cl eari s t hatt her e i s no bas i s i n our pr ece dent forl ooki ng bey ond t he modi fi ed ca t egor i cal appr oach i n appl y i ng t he hypot het i cal f e d e ra l f e lo n ytes t. 12 Je u n e , 4 7 6 F .3 d a t 2 0 2

. A c c o rd in g ly , in G a rc ia w e lo o k e d to 5 th e c h a rg in g in stru m e n t to d e ter m in e th a t G a rc ia p led g u iltyto s el l i ng m ar i

j uana to an under coverpol i ce of fi cer . 462 F. 3d at 2 9 3

. T h u s, w e f

o u n d th a t G a rc ia h a d b e e n c o n v icte d o f a n ill icit t r aff i cki ng offe ns e and w as an aggr avat ed fe l on. I d. I n G ar ci a, w e conc l uded thatw e s houl d notgo bey ond t he modi fi ed ca t egor i cal appr oach, as w e d i d i n N i j haw an, beca us e w e w er e notdi r ect ed t o do s o byt he aggr avat ed fe l ony e n u me r a t i n g s t a tu t e . Se e Gar c i a , 4 6 2 F. 3 d a t 2 9 2 ; Si n g h , 383 F. 3d at 161 ( “[T] he hypot het i cal fede r al fel onyt r i l ogy( St eel e, G erber , and W i l s on) as ks onl yw hethert he el ement s of a f eder al c rim in a l sta tu te c a n b e sa tisf ied b y re f e re n c e to th e a c tu a l sta tu te o f co n v ict ion ; this pre sen ts no inv it ati o n to d ep art fro m T ay lor’s for m al cat egor i cal appr oach and exami ne the under l y i ng fac t s . ”)

. T hus , w e m ay onl y l ook bey ond t he s t atut or ydefi ni t i on t o t he ext entper m i t t ed byt he modi fi ed ca t egor i cal appr oach a nd T ay l or - Shepar d. C f. Si ngh, 383 F. 3d at163 ( not i ng t hati n cas es i nvol vi ng di s

j unct i ve s t atut es of convi ct i on “w e have nott aken t he furt hers t ep of l ooki ng t o fac t s out s i de the cha r gi ng in stru m e n t o r f

u r th e r p lea ” ). W e m a yn o t o p e n o u r re v iew to ot herr ecor ds ori nqui r e i nt o t he fa ctual bas i s for t he under l y i ng co n v ict ion as w e d id in N ij h aw an . T h ere fo re, th e B IA ’s i n q u iry sh o u ld h a v e b e en li m it ed to the m aterial s d esc ri b ed in T ay lorS h e p a rd

. I ndeed, t he G overnm ents eems t o conce de thatt he m odi fi ed ca t egor i cal appr oach a nd t he Tay l or - Shepard fr amew or k govern t h is cas e. N onethel es s , t he G overnm ent a rg u e s th a t th e c rim in a l in f o rm a ti on , in c lu d in g c h a rg e s in c o u n ts of w hi ch Evanson w as notconvi ct ed, an d t he j udgm entof s ent ence ar e appr opr i at e r ecor ds t o cons i derundert he modi fi edI n t hi s cas e, t he pot ent i al s our ces of i nfor m at i on about 6 E v a n so n ’s c o n v ictio n a r e ( 1 ) th e c rim in a l co m p lain t an d its i ncorpor at ed “a ffi davi t of pr obabl e ca us e”; ( 2) t he count s of the cr i m i nal i nfor m at i o n t o w hi ch Evanson pl ed gui l t y ; ( 3) ot her count s i n t he cr i m i nal i nfor m at i on; ( 4) t he j udgm entof s ent ence ; and (5) E vans on’ s t es t i m onybefor e the I

. J

. T he G overnm ent d o es n o t argu e tha t w e m ayco n side r E v an so n ’s t esti m onyb ef o re t he I. J. T h e G o v ern m ental s o s eems t o ur ge the C our tt o cons i der 7 t he al l egat i ons i n t he af

fi davi tof proba bl e ca us e att ache d t o t he cr i m i nal compl ai nt
. H ow ever , beca us e the cr i m i nal compl ai nt w as s uper cede d byt he cr i m i nal i nfor m at i on i n t hi s cas e, i ti s not t he re l evant char gi ng document and i s notan appr opr i at e s our ce undert he modi fi ed ca t egor i cal appr oach. T h e ju d g m e n t o f

se n ten c e a lso w a s n o t a n a p p ro p ria te b a sis 8 fo r de term ining the a m o u n t o f m arij u an a inv o lved in E v an so n ’s offe ns e fora r el at ed r eas on. 8 U

. S. C

. § 1229a( c) ( 3) ( A ) r equi r es t hatt he G overnm entpr ove r emovabi l i t ybycl eara n d c o nvi nci ng evi dence

. T he amount r eci t ed i n t he j udgm entof s ent ence w as noti t s el f nec es s ar i l ybas ed on cl earand convi nci ng evi dence

. 13 cat egor i cal appr oach. T he G overnm en ti s corr ectt hatt he 6 cr i m i nal i nfor m at i on, as t he r el evantchar gi n g d o cum ent , i s an appr opr i at e r ecor d t o cons i der

. H ow ever , a court appl y i ng t he m odi fi ed ca t egor i cal appr oach m ay onl y cons i dert he cha r gi ng document t o t he ext ent t hat t he pet i t i onerw as actual l yconvi ct ed of t he char ges . C f. St eel e v. B l ackman, 236 F. 3d 130, 136- 37 7 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( hol di ng t hat t o fi nd t hatan al i en w as convi ct ed of an aggr avat ed fel ony“ther e mustbe a j udi ci al det er m i nat i on b ey o n d a re aso n ab le do u b t o f e v eryelem en t of a f elon yo r a con st i tuti on al l yvali d p lea t hat encom passes each of t ho se elem en ts”); see also A laka v . A tt ’yG en . , 4 5 6 F

. 3 d 8 8 (3d C ir

. 2006) ( decl i ni ng t o consi dert he t ot al l os s amount s t at ed i n a m u lti -c o u n t in d ictm e n t w h e re A lak a p led g u ilty to o n ly a sin g le countw i t h a l ow erl os s amount )

. A ccor di ngl y , w e maycons i der o n lyth e p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te a n d c o n sp ira c yto po sses s w i t h int ent t o d i stri bu t e cou nts
. Fur t her , w e maynotl ook t o fac tual as s er t i ons i n t he j udgm entof sent ence . Fact s a j udge cons i der s i n m aki ng a d isc re tio n a ryse n ten c in g d e ter m in a tio n a re n o t n e c e ss a rily admi t t ed byt he def

endant

. C f. , C om m onw eal t h v. L ane, 941

814 A

. 2d 34, 38 ( Pa. Super

. C t
. 2008)

. A cc or di ngl y , fac tual as s er t i ons cont ai ned onl yi n a j udgm entof s ent ence m aynotbe co n side red u n d er the m o d ifi ed ca tego ri ca l app roa ch

. S ee In re V el azque z- H err er a, 24 I

. & N

. D ec. at516- 17 ( hol di ng t hat fac tual not at i ons on W as hi ngt on j udgm entof s ent ence di d not “con st i tute pr oo f of d efen dan t ’s ‘convict ed co nd uct’ ”); see al so U n it ed S tat es v . G u ti errez -R am ir ez , 4 0 5 F

. 3 d 3 5 2 , 3 5 8 (5th C ir

. 2005) ( hol di ng t hat“di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n r el y i ng excl us i vel yon t he abs t r actof j udgm entt o det er m i ne w h et hert he convi ct i on under[C al i forni a l aw ] w as a ‘ drug t r aff i cki ng offe ns e, ’ ” butt hat a b stra c t o f ju d g m e n t m ig h t b e p e rm iss ib le in c o m b in a tio n w ith char gi ng doc u me n t ) ; Uni t e d St a t e s v . Navi dad- M ar cos , 367 F. 3d 903, 909 ( 9t h C i r . 2 0 04) ( hol di ng t hatC al i forni a abs t r actof j udgm entm aynotbe used as onl y s our ce of i nfor m at i on under m odi fi ed ca t egor i cal appr oach be caus e, among ot hert hi ngs , t he abs t r actof j udgm ent“does notcont ain inf or m at i on as t o t he c rim in a l ac ts to w h ich th e d e f e n d a n t u n e q u iv o c a llya d m itt e d in a p lea c o ll o q u yb ef

o re the co u rt ”). In th is case , the o n lyp arts of th e c u rren t r ec o rd ap p r o p r i a t e l y b e f

o r e t h e BI A wer e t h e s t a tu t o r y d e f i n i t i on and t hos e count s of t he cr i m i nal i nfor m at i on t o w hi ch Evanson pl ed g u il ty
. T h u s, the o n lyinf o rm ati o n

— b ey o n d the s tatu tory d ef in iti o n

— p rop erlyin the rec o rd is that E v an so n ’s P e n n sy lv a n ia o f

f e n se in v o lv e d m a riju a n a . T h e B IA e rre d in co n sid e ri n g the a m o u n t of m arij u an a inv o lved in E v an so n ’s offe ns e, i nfor m at i on cont ai ned onl y i n t he j udgm entof s ent ence a n d h is te stim o n yb e f

o re th e IJ. O u r h o ld in g in Je u n e th a t a m ar i j uana c onvi ct i on under35 Pa. St at
. A nn. § 780- 113( a) ( 30)

— w it h o u tpr oof of the amount i nvol ved or r emuner at ion

— is an alog o u s to a fe d era l m isde m ea n o r th ere fo re c o n tro ls th e o u tc o m e o f th e h yp o th e tica l f

e d e ra l f e lo n ytes t in th is c a se . F o r th is re a so n , w e h o ld th a t th e B IA a lso e rre d in its ul t i m at e conc l u sion that E v an so n ’s P en n sy lvan iaconvi ct i on w as a hypot het i cal fede r al fel onyand thus cons t i tut ed an a ggr avat ed f e lo n y . III

. W e w ill g ra n t th e p e tit io n a n d re m a n d to th e B IA to con si der i n the fi rs ti nst ance w heth er Ev anson ’s off ense cons t i tut ed an aggra vat ed fe l onyundert he i l l i ci tt r aff i cki ngA lt h o u g h w e concl ude thatt he B I A err ed i n cons i der i ng 9 m o re th a n th e sta tu to ryd e f in it io n a n d th e c h a rg in g d o c u m e n t, and t his con cl usi on

— i n add i t i on t o ou r ho l ding i n Jeun e— al so s ugges t s t hatt he G overnm entcannotm eeti t s bur den undert he ill icit tra f

f ick in g e lem e n t tes t, w e re m a n d b e c a u se th e B IA d id notcons i dert hi s i s s ue i n i t s pr evi ous rul i ng. 15 el ement t es ti n l i ghtof G ar ci a and J eune. 9