E r i c H. Ho l d e r , J r
. , i s s u b s t i t u t e d f o r h i s p r e d e c e s s o r M i c h a e l B. * M ukasey , as A t t o rney G eneral

. Fed

. R

. A p p
. P

. 43 (c)( 2 ).

T h e H on or abl e M y r on H

. B r i g h t , Se n i or Ci r cu i t J u dg e f or t h e U

. S. ** C o urt of A p p eal s f

o r t he E i ght h C i rcui t , s i t t i ng by desi gnat i o n. F OR P UB LIC AT ION


### U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT

J OS E L OPEZ -V AS QUEZ ,

Petitioner ,

v.
E RI C H. H OL DER , J R ., * Attor ne y Ge ne ra l, Respondent

. Nos. 08-71950 08-74867 Ag ency No. A076-625-020

OPI NI ON

On Petitions for Review of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of I mmi g ratio n App e a ls Argued and Submitted No ve mbe r 8 , 2 01 2—Pa sa de na , Ca lif or nia
Filed F ebrua

ry 1, 2013
B e fo re : My

ro n H . B ri g ht, Susan P. Graber , and

** Sand ra S. Ikuta , Ci rc uit

Judg e s. Op ini on by Judg e I kuta ; Concurre nce by

J udg e B rig htL OPEZ -V A SQ U EZ V

. H OL DER

2

T hi s s ummary co ns t i t ut es no p ar t of t he op i ni on of

t he cour t

. I t ha s *** b een p repa red b y co urt s t af f f o r t he co nveni ence o f

t he read er. SUMMAR

Y ***

Im m igration
The p an e l d e n ie d

Jo s e L o p e z- V a s qu e z’ s p e ti ti o n f or revie w of the B oard of I mmigration Appeals’ decision denying a djustm en t o f status on ac count of his fe lony conviction fo r poss ession of marijuana for sa le, in violation of California H ealth & Safety Code § 11359.
Th e p an e l h e l d

th a tL o p e z - V a s qu e z f

a i l e d t o c ar r y his burden to prove that he wa s enti tled to relief unde r the Fe dera l First Offender Act, despite the fact that the state c ourt set aside his fe lony

convi ct i o n and dee med it to be a misdemeanor. T he panel h eld that the re cord w as inconclusive a s to whether the state cour t actually chan ged L o p e z- V a s qu e z’ s CH S § 1 1 3 5 9 c o n v ic ti o nto mi s d e me an or simple possession of m arijuana , in violation of C HS § 11357, beca use CHS § 11359 is a “straig ht felony” that ca nnot be desig nated a s a misdemeanor , and the r ecor ds do not refle ct a c h an g e to CH S § 1 1 357

. T h e p an e l a ls o d e n ie d L o p e zVa sq ue z’s pe tit ion

fo r r e vie w f

ro m th e B I A’s de nia l of

his motion to reopen.
C o n c ur r i n g , Ju d g e B r i g h tw o u l d i n s tr u c tth e B I A to pe rm it re op e nin g
. Judg e B ri g ht a g re e d that the re c ord is unclea r and that L opez-Vasque z mus t do more than prove th a tth e r e c o r d

i s i n c o n c l u s i v e , b u th e w o u l d g i v e L o p e zVasque z another cha

nce to establish that the state courtL OPEZ -V A SQ U EZ V

. H OL DER 3

c ha ng e d h is o ff

e ns e of con vic tio n to sim ple po sse ssi on

in violation of CHS § 11357.

CO UN SEL
Audra R. B ehné, L aw Offic es of Audra

. R. B ehn é, E ncino, California, for

the Petitioner.

Br ianne Whelan Cohen and J oseph A. O’Connell (a rgu ed), U.S. Depar

tment of J ustice, Off

ice of I mmigration L itigation, Was hin g ton , D .C. , f

or Re sp on de nt.

OP IN ION
I KUTA, Circ uit J udg e:
J ose L opez-Vasque z petitions for review of the B oard of I m m igr ation Appea ls’ (B I A) de nial of his application for adjustment of status a

nd its de nial of his motion t o reopen b a s e d o nn e we v id e n c e
. T h e B I A c o n c lu d e d that L o p e zVasque z was ineligible f

or adjustment of status bec ause of a 19 97 c onvic tio n f

or po sse ssi on of

mari jua na fo r s a le in violation of California He alth & Saf ety Code section 11359. L opez-Vasque z contends that t h e 1997 conviction was actua lly for simple possession of m ar ijuana in violation of Hea lth & Safe ty Code section 11357 and that, as a re sult, he is eligible f

or re lief under Luj an -A rm e nd ar iz v . I NS , 222 F.3d 728, 749 (9th Cir. 2000), ov e rru le d pr os pe c tiv e ly by Nun ezRey es v. H

older , 646 F.3d 684, 690 (9th Cir. 2011) (en ba nc). We d e ny bo th p e tit ion s.L OPEZ -V A SQ U EZ V

. H OL DER

4

An a l i en ma y be c h arged w i t h bei n g r emov abl e i f t h at a l i en h as n ot 1 been adm i t t ed t o t he U ni t ed St at es an d i s “ i nadmi s s i bl e. ” See 8 U

. S. C. § 1229a ( e) ( 2) ( A)

. An a l i en c h ar g ed as be i ng r emov abl e f or t h i s r ea s on m ay co nt est t hat charge by pro vi ng ad m i ss i b i l i t y “ cl earl y and be y o nd d o ub t

. ” § 1 2 2 9 a(c)( 2 )( A ). B y co nt ras t , al i ens who are seeki ng re lief f r om r emov al by appl y i n g f

or adj u s t men t of

s t at u s m u s t prov e admi s s i bi l i t y “ by a p r epondera nce of

t he evi dence

. ” See 8 C

. F. R

. § 12 40

. 8(d)

. B eca use Lo p ez- V asquez i s seekin g r e l i ef f rom remo val , t he rel evant s t and ard sh o u ld b e the p re p o n d e ra n c e sta n d a rd se t f o rth in § 1 2 4 0 .8 (d ). B u t, becau s e Val adez -M unoz a n d B l an co hel d t hat t he “ cl earl y and be y o nd d o u b t” b u rd e n o f p ro o f is a p p lica b le in th is c o n te x t, w e a re b o u n d to a p p ly this p re c e d e n t. I
In o rd e r t o und e rsta

nd L op e z-V a sq

ue z’s argume nts , it

is first nec essar

y to und er s t and the inter play betwee n the applicable statutory

fra mework a nd our ca se law.
A
Th e Attor ne y Ge ne ra l ma

y a dju st the status of an a lie n if

“ the a lie n is e lig ibl e to r e c e ive an immig ra nt vis a and is admissible to the United State s fo r permanent re sidence .” 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) (2 )( A). The alien has the “‘bur den of establishing

. . . clea

rly and beyond doubt’ that he is ‘e ntitled to be admitted and is not inadmis s i b l e u nder [8 U.S.C. §] 1182.’” Valadez-Munoz v . Holder , 6 23 F .3 d 1 30 4, 13 08 (9 th Cir

. 20 10 ) (q

uo tin g 8 U. S.C. § 1 22 9a(c )( 2) (A )) ; se e als o Blanco v. M

ukasey , 518 F.3d 714, 720 ( 9th Cir. 2008). 1
Under § 1182, an alien who has bee n convicted of an offe nse “re lating to a controlled substance” is i n ad missibl e. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2) (i)(I I ). B eca use the burde n of provingL OPEZ -V A SQ U EZ V

. H OL DER 5

admissibili ty

is on t h e alien, Valadez-Munoz , 623 F.3d at 1308, an alien with a criminal convic tion must prove that the conviction does not re late to a c ontrolled substance or o t h erwise rende r the alien inadmissible unde r § 1182. Cf

. Y oung v. Holder , 697 F.3d 976, 989 ( 9th Cir. 2012) (en ba nc). An alien c annot ca

rry this burden “by

mere ly establishing that the re le va

nt r e c or d o f c onvic tio n is inc on c lus ive a s to whether ” the c onviction was for an off ense that would make the alien inadmissible. Id. at 979–80.
B
An al i e n ’ s i n ad m i s s i b i l i ty un d er § 1 1 8 2 d

u e t o a d ru grelated conviction is g ener ally n o t affecte d by

the later expungeme nt of the convic ti on. Mu ril lo-Es pin oz a v . I

NS , 26 1 F .3 d 77 1, 77 4 (9 th Cir . 2001) ; see8 U .S. C. § 1101(a) (48)( A). The Fe dera l Fir s t Offe nder A ct (F FOA )
c re a te d a lim ite d e xce pti on to thi s r ule fo r f e de ra l de fe nd ants

. See18 U.S.C. § 3607. Under the FF OA, a fede ral c ourt ca n put f ir st- tim e dr

ugof fe nd e rs wh o a

re con vi cted o f s imp le possession under 21 U.S.C

. § 844 on pre- judgme nt probation. § 3607(a)

. I f the de fenda

nts succe ssfully complete pr obation, the cour t must di schar g e them “w ithout enteringa judg ment o f c o n v ic ti on.” Id. An FF OA disposition “shall not be considere d a convic tion for the purpose of a disqualific ation or a disability imposed by law upon conviction of a crime, or for a ny o t her pur

pose,” § 3607( b), includingimmigration proce eding s. See Nune

z-Rey es , 646 F.3d at 688.
In Luj an -A rm e nd

ar iz , we e x tended the immi g ration benef its of t he FFOA to individuals wit h expunged state cour t convictions for f

irst-time simple possession drug of fense s wher e the of

fende rs “would h ave be en elig ible for r elief under the [FFOA ] had their offe nses bee n pros ec u t ed asL OPEZ -V A SQ U EZ V

. H OL DER

6
fede ral c rimes.” Luj an -A rm e nd ar iz , 2 2 2 F.3d

a t 7 4 9

. We later e x tended Luj an -A rm e nd ar iz to c ov e r e xpun g e d s tate court c onvictions where the drug offe nse was “a less se rious off e n s e th ans im

p le p o s s e s s io no f

a c o n tr o ll e d

s u b s ta nce,” such as a conviction for posse ssion of drugpara pherna l i a. Ramirez-Altamirano v. Holde r , 563 F.3d 800, 808 ( 9th Cir. 2009) (inter

nal quotation marks omitted), overruled prospective ly by Nunez-Rey es , 646 F.3d at 694.
Rece ntly , Nunez-Rey es overr uled Luj an -A rm e nd

ar iz and Ramirez-Altamirano and

he ld t hat th e F F OAa

pp lie s to on ly f e d e r a l c o n v ic ti o ns. N

u n ez-Re yes , 646 F.3d at 690. But Nunez-Rey es a

pp lie s only

pr os pe c tiv e ly , s o w e mus t st ill evaluate convictions ente red b y a state cour t before J uly

14, 2011, under Luj an -A rm e nd ar iz ’s fra mework. Id. at 693–94.
C
L opez-Vasque z’s claim that he is e ligible f or adjustment of status hin g e s on the dif

fe re nc e s be tw e e n Ca lif

or nia He a lth & Saf ety Code sections 11357 and 11359.
Section 11357 criminal i z es t he possession of mar ijuana
or conc entrated ca

nnabis as we ll as the possession of
mari jua na “ up on the g ro un ds of

, o r w ith in, any sc ho ol. ” Ca l. Hea lth & Safe ty

Code § 11357 (West 1997). At the time of L opez-Vasque z’s conviction, a violation of section 11357 was punisha b l e by

imprisonment in a state prison, imprisonment i n county

jail, or a fine , dependingon the specific circ umstances of

the violation. Id. Un de r C a lif or nia law, a statut e that can res ult

in t his ra ng e of punis hme nts is ref err ed to as a

“wobbler ” s t atut e bec ause it provides f or either a misdemeanor or

a fe lony

conviction. See Ga rc ia- Lop e z v . A sh c ro

ft , 334 F.3d 840, 844 (9th Cir. 2003)L OPEZ -V A SQ U EZ V

. H OL DER 7

(c iti ngC a l

. P e n a l C o d e § 1 7 ( b ) )

. “ W h e th e r a ‘ w o b b l e r ’ is deter mined to be a misdemea

nor or a felony is controlled by Ca l. Pe n a l Co d e § 1 7 ( b )

. . . .” Ga r cia-L opez , 334 F.3d at 8 4 4

. A s r e l e v an tt o th i s c a s e , “ [a ] w o b b l e r o f f e n s e ‘i s a mis de me ano r f

or a ll p ur po se s .
. . [w]he n th e c ourt grants probation to a defenda

nt without imposit ion of sentence a nd at th e ti me o f g r an ti n g p r o b a ti o n , o r o n a p p li c a ti on . . . there afte r, the c ourt d ec l ares the offe nse to be a mi s d em eanor.’” Id. at 845 (a lterations in orig inal) (quoting Cal. Penal Code § 17(b)( 3)).

L op e z-V a sq

ue z a sse rt s that a se c tio n 1 13 57 c onvic tio n is a “simple possession” dr

ug conviction and that he w ould have been e ligi ble for r elief unde r the F FOAhad it been pr os e c ute d a s a

fe dera l cri me . We have no t pr e vio us ly
a dd re sse d th is q

ue sti on , a nd we ne e d n ot reach i t to da y in light of our

conclusion, see inf

ra Part I I I , that the B I A did not
err in concludingthat L opez-Vasque z was not convicted of this offense.
Section 1 1 3 59 criminalizes the possession of marijuana for s a le

. Ca l. H e a lt

h & Sa f e ty Co d e § 1 1 3 5 9 ( West 1997) (“Eve ry person who posse sses for sa le any marijuana

. . . shall be punished by imprisonment in the st at e p ri son.”). B e c a us e se c tio n 11 35 9 pr e sc ri be s “ imp ri so nme nt in t he state pr iso n” a s th e on ly

ava ila ble punis hme nt, it i s a fe lony . Cal

. Penal C o d e. § 17(a) . In addition, California Penal Code section 17(b) does not a

pply and, as a re sult, a court may not desig nate a s ection 11359 conviction as a misdemeanor

. People v. Mauc h , 163 Cal. App. 4t h 669, 674 (Ct. App. 2008) (holding that a cr ime punishable only by imprisonment in the state prison is a

“straig ht felony” that ca

nnot be desig nated a s a misdemea

nor (inter nal quotation marks omitted)).L OPEZ -V A SQ U EZ V

. H OL DER

8
I f L opez-Vasque z’s drugconviction was f o r possession of marijuana for sale in violation of se ction 11359, he would be ineligible f

or re lief u n der our

pre-Nun e

z-Re y es framework be c a us e , a s he c on c e de s, po sse ssi on fo r sa le is no t a fi rs t- tim e simple possession offense that would qualify for tre atm ent un de r t he F F OA

. No r is it a

le ss s e ri ou s o ff

e ns e tha n s imp le possession of a c ontrolled substance , and so it wo u l d not be treated as if it we re an FF OA-e ligible offe nse under ourpreNunez-Rey es case law. Cf. Ramirez-Altamirano , 563 F.3d at 808.
II
A
Mindful of this framew ork, we now tur n to the fac ts of this case. L opez-Vasque z, a citiz en of El Salvador , entered th e U n it e d

St a te s il le g a ll y in 1 9 8 7

. O nM ay 2 9 , 1 9 9 7 , L o p e zVasque z ple aded no c ontest to, and was c onvicted of, possession of marijuana

for sa le in vio l at i o n of He alth & Safety Code section 11359. The state co u rt ’s minute order states: “C OUN T 0 1: 11 35 9 H&S FEL - POSS MARI J UANA/HASH FOR SAL E,” a nd “COUNT ( 01): DI SPOS I TI ON: CONVI CTED.” The state cou rt suspended th e i m position of a sentenc e, plac ed L opez-Vasque z on pr ob a tio n a

nd , a s a con di ti on

of pr ob a tio n, re qu ir e d h im t o se rv e 18 0 d ay s in

c ounty ja il.
Over a y ear later, on July

13, 1998, the court he ld a status
con fe renc e in L opez-Vasque z’s case. A t the status
co n fe re n ce , L o p ez -V as qu ez s o u gh t a ch an ge in h i s c h ar ge

“ for im mig ratio n p ur

po se s. ” Th e c ourt

did no t r ule on thi s re qu e st a nd , in ste a d, or dered the pr ob a tio n d e pa rtme nt “ to prepa re a repor t pursuant to termination and dismissal of theL OPEZ -V A SQ U EZ V

. H OL DER 9

Th e m i n u t e o r d e r s t a t e s : “ PU R S UA NT TO S EC TI ON 1 7 PEN AL 2 COD E, OFFENSE I S D EEM ED T O BE A M I SDEM EAN O R. P R OB A TI ON I S O R DE R E D TE R MI NA TE D

. . . . P L E A O F G UI L TY O R C O N V IC T IO N IS S E T A S ID E .” defe ndant’s probation.” L ike t h e minute order f or the previous heari n g, the minute order for the sta

tus confer ence state s: “COU

NT 01 : 11 35 9 H & S F EL - P OSS MARI J UANA/HA SH FOR SAL E.”
In compliance with the court’s order , a probation off icer
me t w ithL op e z-V a sq

ue z an d pre pa

re d a re po rt

. The re port state s th a t L op e z-V a sq

ue z wa s convic te d of “ HS1 13 59 POS S M A RI JU A

N A F O R S A L E

. ” I t c o n c lu d e s th a t L o p e zVa sq ue z ap pe are d to be “ fu lly in c omp lia

nc e wi th the te rm s and c on dit ion s o f h is p ro batio n” and state s th a t “ the c ourt is respe c tf ull y a dv ise d to g ra

nt h im h is h e art ’s de sir e s a s st ill keepinghim on probation will be h ar m fu l to his i mmigra nt status.”
Ba sed on this favora

ble re p o rt, on August 10, 1998, the
cou rt deeme d L opez-Vasque z’s conviction to be a misdemeanor, te rminated proba tion, and set aside the conviction under

section 1203.4 of the Ca l i fo rnia Pena l Code. The state c ourt’s re cords do not state that the court

2 chang ed the of

fense of convic tion to si m p l e possession of marijuana . In fac t, like the previous mi n u t e o rders, the minute order f

or the August 1998 hearing c ontains the fo llo wi ngno tati on : “ CO UN T 0 1: 1 13 59 H& S F EL - P OSS MARI J UANA/HA SH FOR S AL E.” The probation depar tment’s rec ords also re flec t that L op ez -Vasquez’s conviction was de emed a mis demea

nor, that probation was termi nated, a

nd that the conviction wa s set aside. L ike the state cour t’s minutes, the probation depar tment’s rec ords doL OPEZ -V A SQ U EZ V

. H OL DER

10
not indicate that the cour

t chang ed L opez-Vasque z’s crime of conviction to simple possession.

B
Af te r t he g ov e rnme nt i nit iate d r e mov a l pr oc e e din g s in 2004, L opez-Vasque z concede d that he wa s removable but applied for

adjus tment of status based on his marr iag e to a United States citizen. The immigr ation judge (I J ) conc luded that L opez-Vasque z was ineligible f or adjustment o f status be c a us e of the 19 97 dr

ug c onvic tio n. In re a chi ng thi s conclusion, the I J addre ssed L opez-Vasque z’s argument that his conviction was elig ible for FF OA treatment under LujanAr me nd ar iz . L op e z-V a sq

uez ass e rt e d th a t, whe n th e sta te c ourt de signate d h is c onvic tio n a s a mis de me ano r, it a lso chang ed the underlying offe nse from possession of marijuana for sa le in violation of section 11359 to simpl e possession of
mari jua na in v iol a tio n o f s e c tio n 1 13 57

. Be c a us e on ly
se c tio n 1 13 57 , a

nd no t se c tio n 1 13 59 , can be cha rg e d a s a m i s demea

nor, L opez-Vasque z reasoned that the court wa s a ble to r e du c e his c onvic tio n to a mis de me ano r o nly be c a us e it also chang ed his offe nse to simple possession.
The I J reje cted this argument and dete rmined that it was not clear from the r ecor d why

the state c ourt reduc ed the conviction from a felony to a misdemeanor. He r easone d that either the state cour

t erre d in reduc ing L opez-Vasque z’s conviction to a misdemea nor under section 11359 or it er

red in specify

ing the section under

which t h e re duction was
en t er ed

. Inei th er

ca s e, th e IJ co n cl u d ed , h e c o u l d n o t“go behind the convic tion.”

L op e z-V a sq

ue z ap pe a le d to the B I A, wh ic h d ism iss e d h is
a p p e a l i na

r e a s o n e d o p i n i o n o n A p r i l 1 8 , 2 0 0 8

. T h e B IAL OPEZ -V A SQ U EZ V

. H OL DER 11

no te d that th e burd e n w a s o n L op e z-V a sq ue z to e sta

bli sh el i g ibilit y for r elief. A n d

it c o n c lu d e d

th a t h e h a d

“ not submitt ed any

court orde r, re cord, state ment from the district attorney prosec uting hi s case , or other dir ect e vidence
e sta bli sh ingthat he wa s a c tua lly con vic te d o f s imp le possession of marijuana .” The B I A dec lined to infer that the state c ourt

ha d n e c e ssa

ri ly c ha ng e d th e c onvic tio n to sim ple possession, “par

ticularly g iven the intrica cies of the substantive state criminal laws a nd proce dures at issue here .”
Sub se qu e ntl y , L op e z-V a sq ue z fi le d a

mot ion to r e op e n in order to pr esent previously unavailable evidenc e in suppor t of his c la im. Spe c if

ic a lly , h e su

bmi tte d th e tr ans c ri pt o f t

he July 13 , 1 99 8, state c ourt

status c on ference , w hic h s tate s, in
re le va nt p art :
The Court: Why is this on calendar ? [ D e f e n s e c o un s e l ] : We are reque sting this be

re d uced to a

misdemeanor. I believe ba sed on the c harg es th at t hat may

be a f actua l imposs ib il it

y , b u t I

have spoken —
Th e Court : L e g a l, n ot f a c tua l. [De fe ns e c ouns e l]: — to [the pr os e c uto r] ab out it

and he’ s indicating that he woul d like a supplementa l report based on a

letter a nd various docume ntations, and he may consi der c hang ing the char g e so that i t can beL OPEZ -V A SQ U EZ V

. H OL DER

12

r e d u c e d to a mi s d e me an o r

f or immigration purposes. So I wouldask that the matter be put over for

a suppl emental
re po rt

. Th e c ourt did no t mak e any fu rt he r state me nt i n r e sp on se to the defe nse counse l’s reque st, but merely continued the
c a se to a late r date and

or de re d th e pr ob a tio n o ff

ic e r t o s ub mit
a su pp le me nta l r e po rt

. Th e B I A ac c e pte d that this tr ans c ri pt w a s n ot p re vio us ly available but denied the motion to reope n becau s e i t found that L op e z-V a sq

ue z ha d failed

to d e mon str a te pr ima

fa c ie
e l i g i b i l i ty f o r a d j u s t m e n to f

s t a tus

. The B I A noted that “[t] here is no ex press findi n g or explicit i ndication whatsoeve r in any

of the mate rial submitt ed [i ncluding the
ne w e vid e nc e ] that th e re sp on de nt w a s con vic te d o f s imp le possession of marijuana , as he c ontends.”

III
We h ave jur isd ic tio n u nd e r 8 U. S.C. § 1 25 2( a )( 2) (D ) t o r e v ie wth e B I A ’ s d e te r

mi n a ti o nth a t L o p e z- V a s qu e z’ s drug conviction makes him inelig ible for a djustment of status, see Ramirez-Altamirano , 56 3 F.3d at 804, overruled on othe r g r o unds by Nunez-Re

yes , 6 4 6 F

. 3 d a t 6 9 0 , an d w e have ju ri s diction under § 1252(a ) to revie w the B I A’s denia l of a motion to reopen. Meza- Vallejos v. Holder , 669 F. 3 d 920, 923 (9th Cir. 2012).
W e r ev i ew qu es t i o n s o f l aw d e n o v o an d fa ct u al fi n d i n gs for substantial evide nce. Brezilien v. Holde r , 569 F.3d 403, 411 (9 th Ci r
. 2 0 0 9 )

. T hu s , “ th e a dmi n is tr a ti v e f in d in g s ofL OPEZ -V A SQ U EZ V

. H OL DER 13

fa c t are c on c lus ive un le ss a ny re a so nab le adj ud ic a tor

wo uld be compelled to conclude to the contrary .” § 1252(b)( 4)(B ). We r e vie w the B I A’ s d e nia l of a mot ion to re op e n for a bu se of discre tion, and may gra nt relief only if the B I A ac ted “ar bitrarily , irrationally , or contra ry t o l aw.” Singh v . I

NS , 213 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2000) (interna l quotation marks omi tte d) ; see also U

n ited States v. Hinkson , 585 F.3d 1247, 12 62 (9 th Cir

. 20 09 ) (e n ba nc ) (h old ingthat, u

nd e r o ur a bu se of d i s cr eti on standard, w e may g rant re lief only

if the cour

t made a leg al err or, or its a pplication of law to fa ct s was “illogic al, i m plausible, or without support in infere nces that may be dra wn from the r ecor d”).

A
To e sta bli shtha t he is e lig ibl e fo r a dju stm e nt o f s tatus , L opez-Vasque z mus t prove “ clea rly and beyond doubt” that he do e s n ot have a

dr ugc onvic tio n th a t r e nd e rs him i nadmissible under § 1182. Cf. Y oung , 6 9 7 F

. 3 d at 989 (“B eca use the burde n of proof

rests on t h e alien, the alien must establish that he or she wa s not con v i ct ed of such a crime.” ). He can me et that burde n only by establishing that his 1997 conviction was for a first- t i m e simple possession dr ugc ri me , that the of

fe ns e wa s e xpun g e d b y

the state c ourt , and that he w ould have be en elig ible for r eli ef unde r the FF OA had his offe nse bee n prosec uted as a fede ral c rime. See Luj an -A rm e nd

ar iz , 222 F.3d at 748–49.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’ s conclusion that L opez-Vasque z was convicted of possession of marijuana for sale un der se ction 11359, which does not qua lify for r elief under Luj an -A rm e nd

ar iz . T he state c ourt ’s min ute or de rs a ll show that L opez-Vasque z was convicted o f poss ession of marijuan a for

sale in violation of Hea lth & Safe ty CodeL OPEZ -V A SQ U EZ V

. H OL DER

14

N o r d o es L o p ez- V asquez c i t e any supp o rt for the p rop o si t i o n t hat t he 3
s t at e c our t ev en had t he aut hor i t y t o a mend t he cha r ge t o whi ch he pl eaded g u ilt y, at le a st no t with o u t t h e p ro se c u to r’s c o n se n t. C f. P e o p le v . O rin , 1 3 C a l. 3 d 9 3 7 , 9 4 2 (1 9 7 5 ) (s ta ting tha t t h e p ro se c u to r’s c o n se n t i s n e c e ssa ry to s e c u re “ a p le a to a le sse r o ff e n se tha n tha t ch a rg e d , eith e r in d e g re e o r k ind ” (c itatio n s o m itt e d )) ; P e op le v. S u p erio r C o u rt , 5 9 C a l. A p p
. 3d 27 0 , 27 6 (Ct. A p p
. 19 7 6 ) ( no t i ng t he “excl usi ve aut ho ri t y o f t he
exec u t i v e wi t h r es pec t t o ch ar g i n g of cr i mes an d n eg ot i at i ng t he d i spo si t i o n of charges”). section 11359. The probation office’ s rec ords also re flec t that the 1997 conviction was for possession of m arijuana for sa le.
As he did bef

ore the BIA, L opez-Vasque z aga in argues th a t t h e s tate c o urt n e c e s s ar il y c h an g e d h is c o n v ic ti o nto a violation of section 11357, which he contends c rimin al i zes only simple possession, when it desig nated his convic tion as
a mis de me ano r. Ac c or din g to L op e z-V a sq ue z, b e c a

us e section 11359 is a “stra ight felony ,” the state court could not have de signate d h is c onvic tio n a s a m i sd e me ano r w ith out a lso chang ing his c onviction to a violation of section 11357. We disag ree . Nothing in the state cour t’s rec ords shows that the cour

t change d L opez-Vasque z’s underlying conviction to a violation of sec tion 11357. In f a c t, t he re is 3 no ref ere nce whatsoeve r to section 11357 in any of the
r e c o r d s s u b mi tt e d b y L o p e z- V a s qu e z. T hu s , to a c c e p t L o p e zVa sq ue z’s po sit ion , w e wo uld have to s pe c ulate that th e state court ha d the authority

to c hang e the cha

rg es broug ht by

the p rosec utor, cha

ng ed L opez-Vasque z’s conviction without mentioning that f

act a nd that, in the proce ss of cha ng ing the
c o n v ic ti o n , s e le c te d

s e c ti o n1 1 3 5 7 a s th e new c h ar g e
. We de c lin e to a do pt t

his c ha in o f sp eculati on s. A m or e lik e ly explanation of the inconsistency b et ween the sec tion 11359
c onvic tio n and

the mis de me ano r d e signatio n, is that th e stateL OPEZ -V A SQ U EZ V

. H OL DER 15

W e woul d r eac h t hi s conc l us i on ev en i f Lop ez- V as quez wer e s ubj ect 4 t o t h e l ow e r “ pr e po n de r a n c e of t h e e v i de n c e ” bu r de n i mp os e d by 8 C. F. R. § 1240. 8( d) i n s t ea d of t h e “ cl ea r l y an d bey on d dou bt ” bu r den s pec i f i ed by Val adez

- M unoz a n d B l an co
. c o urt s im p ly e r r e d un d e r s tate la win d e signa ti n g L o p e zVa sq ue z’s c onvic tio n as a misd e me ano r. Suc h er ro rs by state trial courts a

re not unknown. See, e .g. , Mauch , 163 Cal. App. 4th at 674 (holding that the t rial court err ed in desig nating as a misdemea

nor a “straig ht felony” convic tion for cultivating marijuana in violation of Cal. Hea lth & Safety Code § 11358 (i nte rn a l qu otatio n ma

rk s o mitte d) ); P eople v . Superior Cou rt , 29 Cal. App. 4th 323, 328– 3 0 (C t

. App. 1994) (holding that the mag istrate j u d ge er red in re ducingto a mis de me an o r

a “ s tr a i g h tf

e l o n y ” c h ar g e f

o r fa lse imprisonment).
At be st, L op e z-V a sq

ue z co uld e sta bli sh that the re c or d is inconclusive a s to what the state c ourt ac tually did. But b e c a u s e L o p e z - V a s qu e z h a s th e b ur d e nt o s h o wa dm i s s i b i l i t y, a re asonable adjudicator would not be compe lled to conclude that the state c ourt had c hang ed his conviction to a violation of sec tion 11357. See Young , 697 F.3d at 989 (holding in the
canc ellation of re moval context that “an inc onclusive re cord . . . is insufficient to satisfy the alien’ s burden of

proof” ). 4

Indeed, w e rece ntly declined to make a simil ar infe renc e in United States v. Lee , — F

. 3 d — , N o
. 1 0

- 1 0 4 0 3 , 2 0 1 2 WL 6720593 (9th Cir. D ec
. 28, 2012). In Lee , the district court sentenc ed the defe ndant as a care er offende r base d, in part, on a state c ourt conviction for selling or offe ringto sell coca ine b ase. Lee , N o
. 1 0

- 1 0 4 0 3 , s l i p o p
. a t4 , 9

. U n d e r C a l i f o r nia law, a de fenda

nt convicted of t h i s offe nse may not rec eive probation unless the state c ourt makes c erta in finding s on theL OPEZ -V A SQ U EZ V

. H OL DER

16

rec ord. Id. at 10–11 (c iting Cal. He alt h & S af et y Code § 1 20 3. 07 3( a )) . T he de fe nd ant ar g ue d that, be c a us e the state court did not make a

ny such findings and be cause he re ceive d probation, he c ould not have be en convic ted of sellingor o f f e r in g to s e ll c o c a in e b a s e
. Id. at 11 . We re je c te d th is argument, even thoug h the burde n of proof was on the g ov e rnme nt, be c a

us e the state c ourt

re c or ds do c ume nte d o nly that th e de fe nd ant wa s c onvic te d of se lli ng or of fe ri ngto s e ll
coca ine base

. Id. at 11–12. As we explained, the state cour t’s failure to c omply with the statutory require ment o f m aking finding s on the rec ord “w as more likely a proc edura l oversight duringsentenc ing r ather than” pr oof that the defe ndant had been convicted of a crime that wa s d iffer ent from what was docume nted in the cour t rec ords. Id. at 12. Simi larl y in t his cas e , th e state c ourt ’s de c isi on to c ha ra c te ri ze the c onvic tio n as a misd e me ano r w a s mo re lik e ly due to an ove rsig ht or er ror on the state cour

t’s part, rather than proof that the state cour t changed L opez-Vasque z’s crime of conviction. Beca

use L opez-Vasque z has the burde n to show that he wa s not convicted unde r sec tion 11359, any such ambiguity

in the state cour

t’s decision mere ly

makes the
rec ord inconc lusive and does not c ar ry his burden of pr oof. See Y oung , 697 F.3d at 989.
B
We a lso c onc lud e tha

t L op e z-V a sq

ue z ha s w a ive d h is challeng e t o the B I A’s denia l of his motion t o reope n by failingto argue it in his brief. See Koe rner v. Grigas , 328 F .3 d 1 03 9, 10 48 (9 th Cir . 200 3) (h old ingthat th is c ourt wi ll not ordinarily

consider matters “that are not specific ally and distinctly argued in appe llant’s openingbrief” (in t er n al quotation marks omitted)). B eyond explaining that this court ha s juri sd ic tio n to re view th e B I A’ s d e nia l of a mot ion toL OPEZ -V A SQ U EZ V

. H OL DER 17

W e d i s agr ee wi t h t he concu r r enc e’ s su gg es t i on t hat we s houl d i ns t r uct 5 the B IA to re o p e n this c a se to a llo w L o p e z -V a sq u e z “the o p p o rtu n ity to at t em p t t o pro d uce” new evi d ence f rom C al i f

o rni a o f f i ci al s. B ecause t he B I A di d n ot e r r i n de n y i n g Lo pe z - V a s qu e z ’ s f i r s t mo t i on t o r e op e n , we la c k the a u tho rity to re v e rs e its d e n ia l. N o r co u ld w e re m a n d this c a se to t he B IA t o pe rmit Lo p ez- V asquez t o f i l e a second m o t i o n t o reop en. B eca us e “ al i ens ar e e nt i t l ed t o f i l e onl y one mot i on t o re op en, ” Lopez V as quez “ i s now bar r ed f r om f i l i ng a s econd mot i on t o re op en. ” Young Su n Sh i n v. M ukasey , 54 7 F

. 3d 10 19 , 10 25 ( 9t h Ci r
. 20 08 ) ( c i t i n g 8 C. F. R. § 1 0 0 3

. 2 (c)( 2 ))

. M o reove r, Lo p ez- V asquez has no t i d ent i f i e d a ny e v id e n c e tha t wo u ld m e e t an a lien ’s “he a v y b u r d e n o f p ro v ing tha t, if reope n and settingfo rt h the new e vidence provided to the B I A, L op e z-V a sq

ue z’s br ie f d oe s n ot r a ise any argume nts direc ted to this iss ue.
Even if we wer e to r eac h the merits of his c halleng e, we wo uld c on c lud e tha

t the BI A di d n ot a

bu se its dis c re tio n in d e n yi n g th e m o t i o n t o r e o p e n
. T h e B IA i s e n t i t l e d t o d e n y a mot ion to r e op e n w he re the app lic ant f a ils to d e mon str a te pri ma fa cie e ligibility

for the unde rlying r elief. Garcia v. Holder , 6 21 F .3 d 9 06 , 9 12 (9 th C ir . 2 01 0) . T o demo ns tr a te pr ima fa c ie e lig ibi lity

the a lie n mu st s ho w “ a re a so na ble likelihood that the statutory require ments for re lief have been satisfied.” Id. (i nte rn a l qu otation mar ks omi tte d) . In th is
case , L opez-Vasque z ’s motion to reopen wa s based on the alleg edly newly -discover ed transcr ipt of the J uly 13, 1 9 9 8, state cour

t status confer ence . This evidence does not
e sta bli sha re a so na ble lik e lih ood that L op e z-V a sq ue z is elig ible for a djustment of status. Even r eadingthe transc ript
mos t f avo ra bly to L op e z-V a sq

ue z, th e trans c ri pt s ug g e sts on ly that th e state c ourt

wa s awa

re tha t r e du c inghis conviction under

section 11359 to a mi sdemea nor wa s a leg al impossibi lity

. But it doe s not de monstrate that the state court actua lly chang ed the unde rlying of fense

. 5L OPEZ -V A SQ U EZ V

. H OL DER

18

p roce ed i ngs were reop ened , t h e n e w e vi d ence wo ul d l i kel y change t he
r es ul t i n t he cas e. ” Id

. (in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). IV
L opez-Vasque z failed to establish that the s tate cour t chang ed his 1997 drugconviction from possession of marijuana for sa le under

section 11359 to simple possession of marijuana under section 11357. Be cause L opez-Vasque z re ma ins ina dmi ssi ble un de r § 11 82 no tw ith sta nd ingthe state c ourt ’s e xpun g e me nt o f h is s e c tio n 1 13 59 off ense, he is ine lig ibl e fo r a dju stm e nt o f s tatus

. P ETIT ION F OR REVIEW DENIED.

BR I GH T , C i rc u i tJ u d ge, co n cu rr i n g:
Ia g re e that th e re c or d is un c le ar a s to whe the r t he state court c hang ed L opez-Vasque z’s offense of convic tion to a violation of section 11357, a “ wobbler” which could have b e e nd e e me d

a mi s d e me anor. I a ls o a g r e e th a t L o p e zVa sq ue z mus t do mo re than pr ov e that th e re c or d is in co n clusive. B ut beca

use the re cord is incomplete a nd
un c le ar, Ibe lie ve that th e pr op e r o utc ome fo r t his c a se is t o instruct the B I A to permit the re openingof the c ase be fore the I mmigration J udg e. This would allow L opez-Vasque z the op po rt un ity to atte mpt

to p ro du ce e vid e nc e fr om C a lif or nia
o f f ic ia ls s h o w in g tha

t t h e s tate c o urt c h an g e d L o p e zVasque z’s offense of convic tion to simpl e possession of marijuana under se ction 11357.L OPEZ -V A SQ U EZ V

. H OL DER 19

L opez-Va s q u ez is not entitl ed to re lief her e bec ause he cannot satisfy the burden of proof; he ca n prove no more than
anin c o n c lu s iv e r e c o r d

. Y e t i t s e e ms un f a ir to d e ny L o p e zVa sq ue z the po ssi bil ity of re lie f wh e n the re are so me fa c ts i n the re c or d to su

pp or t hi s p os ition . F or

e xamp le , at th e July 13, 1998 state cour

t status co n fe renc e, the c ourt acknow ledg ed that simply reduc ing L opez-Vasque z’s section 1 1 3 5 9 c o n v ic ti o nto a mi s d e me an o r

w a s a “ le g al imp os sib ili ty ,” the re by

ind ic a ti ng an a

wa re ne ss t hat a conviction under

section 11359 could not statutorily be deeme d a misdemea

nor. B ut the co u rt later a ppear ed to do exactly what it stated it could not—reduc ed the se ction 11359
c onvic tio n to a

mis de me ano r. Al so , th e tr ans c ri pt o f t he July 13, 1998 status confe renc e indicate s that the prosec utor was considering

chang ing L o p ez -V as qu ez ’s o ff en s e o f c o n v i ction. This is notabl e bec ause unde r California la w, the state c ourt could have chang ed L opez-Vasque z’ s offe nse of c onviction to section 11357 with the consent of the prosec utor.
I t i s tr u e th a t t ak in g th e s e f

a c ts to ind ic a te th a t L o p e zVasque z ’s offe nse of c onviction was cha ng ed to sec tion 11357 would require us to spe culate that the state court took action that is not disclosed in the rec ord. B ut even the majority ’s “most likely

explanatio n ” for the state cour t’s action requires some spe culation—that the state c ourt knowing ly err ed by doing some thing it ac knowledg ed on the
rec ord it could not do.

Ibelieve the state cour

t was t rying to help L opez-Vasque z with his i m m i gration st atus by reduc ing his c onviction to a misdemeanor. The intentions of the state court w ar rant consideration and perha ps those intentions could be the subject of pr oof on a r eopeningof the re cord.L OPEZ -V A SQ U EZ V

. H OL DER

20
I t is disappointi ng that none of the actors in this case took
s te p s to ma

k e th e r e c o r d

c le ar
. We shou ld

g iv e L o p e zVa sq ue z an oth e r c ha

nc e to e sta

bli shtha t th e state c ourt did

in fac t chang e his offe nse of conviction to sim ple possession of marijuana in violation of section 11357.