N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
GUILLER

M O VER A-VALDEVINOS, AKA Guille rm o Ve ra -Va ldovinos, Pe titione r,
v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 14-73861 Age n c y No. A078-021-885
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 Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 15, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : NOONAN, B E A, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Guille rm o Ve ra -Va l de v i nos, a la w ful pe rm ane nt re s ide nt, a ppe a ls from

the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s (“ B IA” )’ s dism i ssa l of his a ppe a l of a n im m igration judge ’ s de c ision finding him re m ova ble unde r se c tion 237(a)(2)(B )(i) of the Im m i gration a

n d Nationa lity

Ac t (“ INA” ) for a c ontrolle d substa nc e viola tion a nd 

# FIL ED
MAY11 2016 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 Ninth C ir. R . 36-3.de ny ing c an c e lla tion of re m ova l unde r INA § 240A(a ). W e re v ie w c onstitutiona l
c la im s a nd le g a l que stions de novo. W e grant the pe tition to re vie w. First, this C ourt c onside rs whe the r Ve ra -Va l de vinos is re m ova ble . Ve ra Va lde vinos wa s c onvic te d of viola ting Ariz . R e v. Stat. § 13-3408, which prohibits the p osse ssion, se l ling, m anufa c turing, a dm iniste ring, proc uring, tra nsporting, im porting, a n d offe ring to tra

nsport a “ na rc otic drug.” Ariz . R e v. Stat. § 13- 3408(1)-(7). Unde r INA § 237(a )(2)(B )(i), an a lie n is de porta ble if he is

“ c o nvic te d” of a

viola tion “ re l ating to a

c ontrolle d substa

nc e (a s de fine d in se c tion 802 of Title21).” At ora l a rgum e nt, the gove rnm e nt c onc e de d tha t Ariz . R e v. Stat. § 13-3408 is overbroa d be c a use Ariz ona

prohibits c rim i na l posse ssion of two substa nc e s, B e nz y lfe nta

ny l a nd The ny lfe nta

ny l, whic h a

re not on the Fe de ra l C ontrolle d Substa

n c e Sc he dule
. C

ompare Ariz . R e v. Stat. § 13-3401(20)(n), (c c c c ), w ith 21 U.S.C . § 802. Ac c ordingly , for the purpose of this disposition, this

2C ourt finds tha t unde r the c ate goric a l a

p p roa c h, 1 Ariz
. R e v. Stat . § 13-3408 is not a ground for de porta

tion. Se c ond, this C ourt c onside rs whe the r a c onvic tion unde r Ariz . R e v . Stat. § 13-3408(A)(7) is a

n a ggrav ate d

fe lony unde r INA § 101(a )(43)(B ) (“ illic it tra ffic king in a

c ontrolle d

substa nc e (a s de fine d in se c tion 802 of Title 21” ) whe n
e xam ine d unde r the c ate goric a l m e thod. B e c a use this C ourt finds tha

t Ariz
. R e v. Stat . § 13-3408 is ove

rbroa d due to Ariz o na ’ s re gula

tion of two substa

nc e s not on the Fe de ra l C ontrolle d

Substa nc e Sc he d

ule , by de finition a

c o nvic tion unde r Ariz
. R e v. Stat. § 13-3408(A)(7) c a nnot be for illic i t tra ffic king in a fe d e ra lly c ontrolle d substa nc e . The gove rnm e n t re que sts tha t this c a se be re m an de d so tha t the B IA m ay
re a s se ss Ve ra -Va lde vinos’ s re m ova bility and re lie f from

re m ova l. Ac c ording to

1 Ariz . R e v . Stat. § 13-3408 is indivisible . “ [A] sta tute is indivisible

if the jury m a y disa gre e on the fa c t at issue y e t still c onvic t.” Lope z-Vale nc i a v . Ly nc h , 798 F.3d 863, 869 (9th C ir. 2015) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d ). Ariz ona ’ s jury instruc tions do not re q

uire the jury

to m ake a

finding of fa c t re ga

rding the spe c ific substa

nc e at issue
. Se e R e v. Ariz . Jury Instruc tions (C rim ina l), 34.0871 (3d e d.) (“ The c rim e of [tra nsporting na

rc otic drugs for sa le ] [im

p orting na

rc otic drugs into this sta

te ] [se lling na

rc otic drugs] [transfe rring na rc o tic drugs] re quire s proof of the following: 1. The de fe nda nt knowingly

[transporte d a na

rc otic drug for sa le ] [im porte d a na rc otic drug into this sta

te ] [sold a na rc otic drug] [transfe rre d a na rc otic d rug] ; and 2. The substa

nc e wa s in fa c t a

na rc o tic drug.” ). 3the g ove rnm e nt, the a ge nc y fa ile d to a pply the c ate goric a l a

nd m odifie d c ate goric a l
a pproa c h e s whe n de te rm ining re m ova bility
. A c ourt of a

ppe a ls ge n e ra lly

should re m and a

c a se to a n a ge nc y for de c ision of a m atte r pla c e d prim arily

in a ge nc y

ha nds by sta tute . I.N
. S. v . Orlando Ve ntura , 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002). This C ourt, howe ve r, ge ne ra l ly doe s not re m and to the B IA to a pply the c ate goric a l or m odifie d c ate goric a l a pproa c h whe re : (1) “ only le ga l que s tions re m a in a

n d the se que stions do not invoke the B oa rd’ s e xpe rtise ;” (2) “ a ll re le va

nt e vide nc e re ga

rding the c onvic tion ha d be e n pre se nte d to the B IA in e a rlie r proc e e d i ngs;” an d (3) “ the B IA ha d a lre a dy onc e de te rm ine d tha

t the offe nse fe ll within the

ge ne ric de finition of the c rim e , e ve n if only at the
c ate goric a l sta ge .” Flore

s-Lope z v . Holde r , 685 F.3d 857, 865 (9th C ir. 2012) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d); Fre

gozo v . Holde r , 576 F.3d 1030, 1039 (9th C ir. 2009). All thre e fa c tors a re pre se nt he re , whic h m ake s re m and unne c e ssa ry . The gove rnm e n t’ s m otion to re m and is de n ie d. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WG RANT E D.

4