[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 14

- 11032 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A086

- 978

- 329

WALTER JOSE RUIZ, Petitioner,

versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________ (April 8, 2015)

Before HULL , JULIE CARNES and FAY , Ci rcuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 14-11032 Date Filed: 04/08/2015 Page: 1 of 42 Walter Jose Ruiz , a native of Nicaragua, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ’ (“BIA”) final decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) removal order . The IJ found, and the BIA agreed, that Ruiz was removab le , pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 237(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) , based on Ruiz’s Florida conviction for possession of
cocaine

. On appeal, Ruiz argues that his cocaine possession conviction does not qualify as a r emovable offense. After review, we deny the petition for review. 1 As a threshold matter, we not e that , although we lack jurisdiction to review a final removal order against an alien who has committed a controlled substance offense, we retain jurisdiction to review Ruiz’s claim because its raises a question of law. See INA § 242(a)(2)( C), ( D), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2) (C), (D). The BIA and the IJ did not err in concluding that Ruiz ’s cocaine possession conviction was a qualifying conviction under INA § 237(a)(2)(B)

. An alien may be removed if he is convicted of “a violation of . . . any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance,”
unless the alien’s so le offense is possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana for personal use. INA § 237(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i).

1 Because the BIA explicitly agreed with the IJ’s finding of removability, we review the decisions of both the BIA and the IJ. Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 605 F.3d 941, 948 (11th Cir. 2010). W e defer to the BIA’s interpretation of a statute if it is reasonab le and does not contradict Congress’s clear intent

. Quinchia v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 552 F.3d 1255, 1258 (11th Cir. 2008 )

.

Case: 14-11032 Date Filed: 04/08/2015 Page: 2 of 43 At his removal hearing, Ruiz admitted that he was convicted of possessing cocaine under Florida Statutes § 893.13(6)(a), which prohibits an individual from possession a controlled substance, including cocaine, unless obtained under a valid prescription. See Fla. Stat. § 893 .13(6)(a). C ocaine is a controlled substance under federal law. S ee 21 U.S.C. § 812 (listing cocaine and o ther extracts from coca leaves as a Schedule II controlled substance). Thus, possession of cocaine in violation of Florida Statutes § 893.13(6)(a) qualifies as an offense “rel ating to a controlled substance, ” within the meaning of INA § 237(a)(2)(B)

. Ruiz argues that because he possessed only a small amount of cocaine, his
Florida cocaine possession conviction is analogous to a federal misdemeanor

. However, INA § 237(a)(2)(B) plainly and unambiguously applies to all offenses relating to a controlled subst ance, other than the marijuana offenses specifically
excluded , regardless of whether they are misdemeanors or felonies

. I t is unnecessary for the BIA to look for an analogous federal offense and apply the categorical approach , as Ruiz suggests

. Cf. Moncr ieffe v. Holder , __ U.S. __, __, 133 S. Ct. 1678, 1684

- 87 (2013) (employing the categorical approach to determine whether state marijuana possession conviction was an “aggravated felony” under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)). Ruiz contends that the exclusion of minor marijuana offenses should be read also to exclude similar ly minor cocaine offenses. W hen Congress enumerates

Case: 14-11032 Date Filed: 04/08/2015 Page: 3 of 44 specific exceptions, however, we infer “that Congress considered the issue of exceptions and

. . . limit ed th e statute to the ones set forth ” and are not free to read additional exceptions into the statute. Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 681 F.3d 1236, 1240 (11th Cir. 2012) (quotation marks omitted). Thus, neither we nor the BIA may construe INA § 237(a)(2)(B) to exclu de Ruiz ’s cocaine possession conviction as a removable offense. For these reasons, the BIA and the IJ did not err in determining that Ruiz ’s cocaine possession conviction was for an offense “relating to a controlled substance” under INA § 237(a)(2)(B )(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i)

. 2
PETITION DENIED.

2 Ruiz does not challenge the IJ’s denial of his request for a waiver of removability pursu ant to INA § 212(h), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h), excep t for a statement in the conclusion of his appeal brief that he is eligible for such a waiver because his cocaine possession conviction is not a felony under federal law. Because Ruiz makes only a passing reference to his waiver request, he has abandoned this issue. See Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 577 F.3d 1341, 1352 (11th Cir. 2009). Case: 14-11032 Date Filed: 04/08/2015 Page: 4 of 4