2010 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
10-26-2010 

# O m ar Thom a s 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 nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-4706

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 nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

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 Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 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 Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont 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

" Om a r Thom as v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 323. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/3231 P 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

08- 4706
O M A R T H O M A S , Pet i t i oner

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

O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew fr om t he B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls B I A N o. A 041- 362- 379 I m m i gr at i on J udge: T he H onor abl e A ndr ew A r t hur

Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL

. A

. R

. 34. 1( a)

Sept ember16, 2010 B e f o re : S L O V IT E R , B A R R Y , a n d S M IT H ,

C i r cui tJudges ( Fi l ed: O ct ober26, 2010)2 Sandr a L. G r eene G reene F i t zgeral d A dv ocates and C on sul t ants 2 0 0 1 E a st M a rk e t S tre e t 2 n d F loo r Y or k, PA 17402 C ouns el f orP et i t i oner Pat r i ck J

. G l en T hom as W

. H us s ey G l en T. J aege r 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, C i vi l D i vi s 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 C ouns el f orR es pondent

OP I NI ON

S m ith , C i r cui tJudge

. T he B oar d of I m m igr at i on A ppeal s ( B I A ) di s m i s s ed O m arT hom as ’ s appea l fr om a dec i s i on o f the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( I J ) fi ndi ng hi m rem o v ab l e. T he B I A concl uded that T hom as ’ s m i s dem ea n o r co n v ict ion s u n d er N ew Y o rk P enalL aw § 221. 40 cons t i tut ed aggr avat ed fe l oni es . T hom as t hen fi l ed a3 pet i t i on forr evi ew w i t h t hi s cour t
. Si m ult an eo us l y , T hom as so u g h t re c o n sid e ra tio n b y th e B IA o f its d ism iss a l o f h is a p p e a l. T h e B IA g ra n ted th e m o tio n f o r rec o n sid e ra tio n , b u t a d h e re d to t he l egal anal y s i s s et for t h i n i t s i ni t i al deci s i on. T hom as di d not pet i t i on forr evi ew of the B I A ’ s s econd de ci s i on. W e have befor e us onl yt he B I A ’ s i ni t i al deci s i on, and mustdet erm i ne wh e t h e rwe h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w i t
. We c o n c l u d e t h a twe do, and w i l l gr antt he pet i t i on. I

. T hom as , a nat i ve and c i t i zen of J amai ca, ent ered t he U ni t ed St at es i n N ovember of 1987 at t he age of 13 as a l aw ful perm anent resi dent

. A l i t t l e more t han ni ne y ear s l at er , on D ece m ber9, 199 6 , T h om as w as arr es t ed. O n D ece m ber10, D et ect i ve Pi azz a of t he N ew Y or k C i t y Pol i ce D epart m ent c o m p lete d a w ritten sta tem e n t, th e iss u a n c e o f w h ich , if f

a lse , is puni s habl e underN ew Y or k Penal L aw § 210. 45. I tal l eged that T h o m a s co m m itt e d th e c rim in a l sa le o f m a riju a n a in th e f

o u rth degr ee i n vi ol at i on of N ew Y or k Penal L aw § 221. 40, as w el l as cr i m i nal pos s es s i on of m ar i j uana i n t he fi fth degr ee i n vi ol at i on of N ew Y or k Penal L aw § 221. 10( 1)

. T he det ect i ve ave r r ed that h e h a d b e e n “ in f

o rm e d b yU n d e r c o v e r [ in f o rm a n t] th a t . . . [Thom as ] did h and t o i nfor m anttw o pl as t i c bags of a gr een, l eaf ys ubs t ance w i th a di s t i nctodori n excha nge for$20[. ] ” T h o m a s, w h o w a s re p re se n ted b y co u n se l f ro m th e L e g a l A id Soci ety , appea r ed i n the C r i m i nal C our tof the St at e of N ew Y o rk th a t sa m e d a y in w h a t w a s d e sig n a ted N o . 9 6 x 0 7 2 8 6 6 . H isThe rec ord before us does not contain the transcript of the 1 plea c olloquy

for the procee ding in No. 97x074755. Subsequently , it was de termined duringthe immigration 2 proce edingthat this alleg ation was erroneous beca use the J anuar

y 8, 1997 conviction was for possession of marijuana

. As a c onsequenc e, the IJ f o c u s e d o n th e D e c e mb e r 1 0 , 1 9 9 6 an d th e Janu ar y 2 , 1998 4 c o u n se l a d v ise d th e C o u rt th a t T h o m a s w a s “ p lea d in g g u iltyto 2 2 1 .4 0 in f

u ll sa tisf a c tio n ” a n d th a t T h o m a s w a iv e d h is rig h t to p r o se c u tio n b yin f

o rm a tio n . T h e C o u rt se n ten c e d T h o m a s to t hr ee da y s of comm uni t ys ervi ce. T h o m as w as arrested ag ain on D ec em b er 27 , 1 9 9 7 fo r, in tera lia , th e c rim in a l sa le o f m a riju a n a in th e f o u rth d e g re e in v io la tio n o f N e w Y o rk P e n a l L a w § 2 2 1 .4 0 , N o . 9 7 x 0 7 4 7 5 5 . A po l i ce of fi cer pr epared a w ri t t en stat em ent for that cas e, al so puni s habl e i f fa l s e underN ew Y or k Penal L aw § 210. 45, al l egi ng t hat t he under coveroffi cerr ece i ved fr om T hom as and anotherm an one ba g cont ai ni ng a dr i ed, gr een, l eaf ys ubs t ance i n excha nge for$5. A ccor di ng t o t he ce r t i fi cat e of di s pos i t i on, T hom as pl eade d gui l t yon J anuary2, 1 998 t o vi ol at i ng § 221. 40. 1
In addi t i on, T hom as w as convi ct ed of s ever al ot her contr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns es . O n J ul y 31, 2007, he w as s erved w ith a N o tice to A p p e a r. T h e N o tice c h a rg e d T h o m a s w ith h a v in g b e e n c o n v icte d o f th e “ C rim in a l S a le o f

M a riju a n a ” in v io latio n o f

§ 2 2 1 .4 0 o n Ja n u a ry8 , 1 9 9 7 , a n d a s a re su lt 2misdemeanor c onvictions under New York Penal L aw § 221.40. 5 t her eof, bei ng r emovabl e as a cr i m i nal al i en on tw o gr ounds : ( 1) f o rh a v i n g b e e n 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 , 8 U. S

. C. § 1227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) ; and (2) forhavi ng been c onvi ct ed of a co n tr o ll ed su b stan ce o ff en se, 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 2 7 (a)(2)(B )(i ). A for m ent i t l ed A ddi t ion al C h arg e s of I nadmi s s i bi l i t y/ D epor t abi l i t ys peci fi cal l yci t ed the J anuar y2, 1998 convi ct i on, N o. 97x074755, as w el l as fourot her convi ct i ons i nvol vi ng m ar i j uana. A 625.
B efor e t he IJ , T hom as conce ded he w as r emovabl e on the s e c o n d g ro u n d a lle g e d in th e N o tic e to A p p e a r, i

. e. , tha t h is convi ct i ons w er e contr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns es . H e cha l l enged t he averm ent t hat he had been convi ct ed of an a g g rava t ed fel ony , and fi l ed an a ppl i cat i on forcanc el l at i on of r emoval under8 U

. S. C

. § 1229b( b)

. B eca us e ca ncel l at i on of r emoval r e q u ir e s th e a lie n to e s ta b lis h , in tera lia , t h a t h e h a s n o t been c o n v ic te d o f

a n a g g ra v a te d f

e lo n y , i d. § 1 2 2 9 b (b)(1 )(C ), the IJ di r ect ed T hom as t o s ubm i taddi t i onal document at i on r egar di ng hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or y . T her eaf t er , t he I J det erm i ned thatT hom as had fa i l ed t o demonst r at e t hat hi s t w o convi ct i ons forvi ol at i ng N ew Y or k Penal L aw § 221. 40 w er e notaggr avat ed fe l oni es and t he r e f o r e c o n c l u d e d t h a t h e was i n e l i g i b l e f o r c a n c e l l a t i o n of re m o v a l.
T h o m as a p p ea led to the B IA , ch all en g ing the IJ’s det erm i nat i on t hathe w as i nel i gi bl e forcanc el l at i on of r emoval6 beca us e he fai l ed t o es t abl i s h t hat hi s m i s demeanorconvi ct i ons underN ew Y or k Penal L aw § 221. 40 w er e notaggr avat ed fe lon ies. In a d ec isi o n d ated N o v em b er 5 , 2 0 0 8 , the B IA m i s r ead the I J ’ s adj udi cat i on as a det erm i nati o n thathe w as rem ov able on bo t h of the ground s set fort h i n the N oti ce to A p p e a r, i

. e. , t hathi s convi ct i ons qual i fi ed as bot h cont r ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns es and aggr avat ed fe l oni es . Fur t herm o r e, t he B I A stat ed t hatt he I J had pr et erm i t t ed hi s appl i cat i on for canc el l at i on of r emoval

. I n i t s cons i der at i on of the mer i t s of T h o m as’s a p p ea l, the B IA ap p rop ri atelyrec o g n ize d th at th ere w e re tw o ro u tes to a p p ly in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a c o n v ictio n is a n a g g ra v a te d f

e lo n y , i. e. , t he i l l i ci tt r aff i cki ng r out e, and the h yp o th e tic a l f

e d e ra l f e lo n y ro u te
. S ee G er bi erv. H olm es , 280 F. 3d 297 ( 3d C i r . 2002)

. T he B I A found s uppor ti n t he w r i t t en s t at ement s of the pol i ce of fi ce rs f ort he det erm i nat i on t hat T hom as had s ol d t he m ar i j uana for r emuner at i on and t hats uch conductcons t i tut ed a hypot het ical fede r al fel onyundert he C ont r ol l ed Subs t ance s A ct
. A s a re s ul t , t he B I A agr eed w i t h t he I J t hat T hom as ’ s convi ct i on r ecor ds es t abl i s hed thathe had be en c o n v ic te d o f

a n a g g ra v a te d f

e lo n y . T h is ti m ely p eti ti on for r evi ew fol l ow ed. Si m ul t aneous l y , T hom as fi led a mot i on w i t h t he B I A s eeki ng re c o n s id e ra t i o n , w h ic h a s s e rt e d , in tera lia , that the B IA ’s pr ocedur al r eci t at i on w as fac tual l yi ncorr ectbeca us e the I J had f o u n d h im re m o v a b le o n ly o n th e se c o n d g ro u n d , to w it, th a t h is convi ct i ons qual i fi ed as contr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns es . D ur i ng t he pende ncyof hi s pet i t i on for r evi ew fi l ed w i t h t hi s cour t , t he7 B I A gr ant ed hi s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on i n a dec i s i on dat ed J une 12, 2009. T he B I A agr eed w i t h T hom as t hat it s init i al deci s i on m i s char act er i zed the gr ound on w hi ch the I J had det erm i ned he w as r emovabl e. Fort hatr eas on, t he B I A gr ant ed t he m o ti o n t o r econs i deri n or dert o cl ar i fyt hatT hom as w as fo u n d rem o v ab le so lel yo n the b as is th at his co n v ict ion s w ere c o n tro lled su b sta n c e o f f e n se s. T h e B IA f

u rth e r sta ted th a t [a ]pa rt fro m the af

o rem en ti o n ed fa ctua l e rro r, w hi ch w e have now corr ect ed, w e conc l ude that o u r d e c isio n o f

N o v e m b e r 5 , 2 0 0 8 , p ro p e rly e v a lu a ted th e leg a l q u e stio n p re se n ted o n a p p e a l, namel yw hether[Thom as ’ s ] 1996 an d 1998 convi ct i ons fo r four t h degr ee c r i m i nal s al e of m ar i j uana i n vi ol at i on of N

. Y

. Penal L aw § 221. 40 pr ecl ude hi m fr om q u al i fy i ng for c a n c e llatio n o f re m o v a l. F o r th e re a so n s s tate d in ourpr i ordeci s i on, w e cont i nue t o hol d t hat [Thom as ] i s i nel i gi bl e forcanc el l at i on of r emoval

. . . S pecifi cal l y , t he record refl ect s that [T ho m as] w as convi ct ed of m ak ing r em uner at i ve s al es of m ar i j uana, offe ns es t hatcorr es pond t o fel onie s puni s habl e undert he Fe d er al C ont r ol l ed Subst ance s A ct
. . . , namel ym ar i j u ana di s t r i but i on. A ccor di ngl y , t he B I A di s m i s s ed T hom as ’ s appea l and af fi r m ed t he or der of r emoval

. W i t hi n day s of t he s econd BIA deci s i on, t he governm ent fil ed a m ot i on t o di s m i s s t he pendi ng pet i t i onSection 106(a )( 6) of the I NA wa s repe aled in 1996 and 3 replac e d b y

§ 12 52 (b )(6 ). Thetw o s tatut or y prov isi on s area lmo st 8 forr eview for l ack of

j ur i s di ct i on. D es pi t e thatact i on byt he governm ent , T hom as fai l ed t o fi l e a pe ti ti on forr evi ew of the B IA ’s s e c o n d d e c is io n . II.
T he I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i t yA ct( I N A ) , as amende d , pr ovi des for“[j ] udi ci al r evi ew of a f i nal or derof r emoval [. ] ” 8 U

. S. C

. § 1252(a)(1)

. T he governm entcont ends t hat the B I A ’ s J une 2009 dec i s i on gr ant i ng t he mot i on for r econs i der at i on eff

ect i vel y vaca t ed t he ea r l i erN ovember2008 deci s i on. T he resu lt is , acc or di ng t o t he governm ent , t hatt he B I A ’ s N ovember 2008 deci s i on no l ongercons t i tut es a fi nal or derof r emoval s ubj ect t o j udi ci al r evi ew . I f the governm ent i s corr ect , beca us e Thom as di d not fi l e a pet i t i on forr evi ew of t he B I A ’ s J une 2009 deci s i on, w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on under § 1 2 5 2 (a ).
I n St one v. I

m m igr at i on & Nat ur al iz at i on Ser vi ce , 514 U

. S

. 3 8 6 ( 1995) , t he Supr eme C our tcons i der ed a s i m i l ar ar gum entbyan al i en thathi s m ot i on forr econs i d era t i on r ender ed the B I A ’ s under ly ing o rdernonfi nal

. B as ed on the s t atut or ypr ovi s i ons pr ovi di ng for j udi ci al r evi ew i n § 106( a) ( 6) of the I N A , w hi ch has b ee n r epea l ed and r epl ace d by § 1 2 5 2 (b )(6 ), th e C o u rt re a so n e d th a t

3identi cal

. Th esim ila ri ty be tw e e n § 12 52 (b )( 6) ’s te xt an d it s prede cessor

§ 106(a) (6) is de monstrated by the followingcomparison of thetw o s tatut or

y prov isi on s in

wh ic h th ec ur

rent § 12 52 (b )( 6) is annotated w ith strike-outs of some of the te x t of § 106(a) (6) a nd underlining of the new text : “ [W ]heneverhen a petitione r s eeks revie w of a

n order under this sec tion, a ny review sought with respec t toof a mot i o n t o re open or reconsider such a nthe orde r shall be c on so lid ate d w iththereview o f t heord er.” Thus , th eSup reme Court’s interpre tation of § 106(a) (6) in Stoneguides our application of § 1252 in this case. 9 [ b ] yi t s t e r ms , § 1 0 6 ( a ) ( 6 ) c o n t e mp l a t e s t wo p e tit io n s f

o r re v iew a n d d ire c ts th e c o u rts to c o n so lid a te th e m a tters
. T h e w o rd s o f th e sta tu te do notper m i tus t o s ayt hat t he fi l i ng of a pe t i t i on forr econs i der at i on orr eopeni ng di s l odges t he ea rl ier pro ce ed in g re v ie w in g th e u n d e rl y in g o rde r. T h e sta tu te, in f

a c t, d ire c ts th a t th e m o tio n to r eopen or r econs i deri s t o be cons ol i dat ed w i t h t he r evi ew of the or der , nott he otherw ayar ound. T hi s ind icat es t o us t hatt he ac t i on t o r evi ew t he und e r l y i n g o r d e rr e ma i n s a c t i v e a n d p e n d i ng b e f o re th e c o u rt
. . . . W e re a m o tio n f

o r re c o n sid e r a tio n to re n d e r th e u n d e rly in g o rd e r n o n f in a l, th e re w o u ld be, i n t he norm al cour se, onl yone pet i t i on for re v iew f iled a n d h e n c e n o th in g f o r th e ju d icia ryto c o n s o lid a te
.10 5 1 4 U .S . a t 3 9 4 . In o th e r w o rd s , St one i ns t ruct s t hatt he i ni t i al or derof the B I A i s “fi nal w hen i s s ued, i rr es pect i ve of the l at er fi l i ng of a r econs i der at i on m ot i on[. ] ” I d. a t 3 9 5

. St one i s contr ol l i ng. A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude thatt he B I A ’ s i ni t i al deci s i on i n N ovemberof 2008 c o n sti tut es a fi nal or der“irre s pect i ve of the l at erfi l i ng” of Thom as ’ s m ot i on for r econsi d era t i on. B eca us e Thom as fi l ed a t i m el ypet i t i on for r evi ew of the N ovember 2008 deci s i on, w e have author i t yunder § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 1 ) t o re v ie w th a t ru lin g . T h e fi nali t yof an order, ho w ever, i s not the o n ly r equi r ement t hatm us t exi s t befor e w e mayexer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on. See J agger nauth v. A t t or ney G en. , 4 3 2 F .3 d 1 3 4 6 , 1 3 5 1 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (d e c lar in g th a t St one “makes cl ear t hat t he fi nal i t yof t he [B I A ’ s fi r s t or der ] w as not di s turbed by[the] fi l i ng” of the m o tio n f o r re c o n sid e ra tio n , b u t n o tin g th a t St one di d notr es ol ve the j us t i ci abi li tyissue that arises w h en rec o n side rati o n is gr ant ed and the B oar d affir m s i t s or i gi nal or der )

. “To sus t ai n our ju risd ictio n in th e p re se n t ca se , it is n o t en o u g h th a t a d isp u te w a s v e rym u c h a liv e ” w h e n th e p e tit io n f o r re v iew w a s f

iled in th e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls

. Lew is v. C ont ’ l B ank C or p. , 494 U

. S. 472, 477 ( 1990)

. “A rt ic l e I I I of the C ons t i tut i on l i m i t s fede r al ‘J ud i ci al P ow e r,’ t hat i s, fede ral -courtj uri sdi ct i on , t o ‘C ases’ and ‘ C ont r over s i es . ’ ” U.S . P a ro le C o m m ’n v . G e ra g h ty , 445 U

. S. 388, 395 ( 1980)

. T hi s cas e- or - contr over s yr equi r em ent

“ lim its th e b u sin e ss o f

f e d e ra l co u rts to ‘q u e stio n s p re se n ted in an adve r s arycont extand i n a form hi s t or i cal l yvi ew ed as11 capa bl e of r es ol ut i on t hr ough t he j udi ci al pr oces s [. ] ’ ” I d. at396 ( quot i ng F l as tv. C ohen , 392 U

. S. 83, 95 ( 1968)). W hen the q u e stio n s o r “ iss u e s p re se n ted a re n o lo n g e r ‘liv e ,’” th e c a se is m o o t. P ow el lv. McC or m ack , 395 U

. S. 486, 496 ( 1969)

. T hat i s , an i s s ue i s m oot i f “cha nges i n ci r cumst ance s t hatpr evai l ed att h e begi nni ng of the l i t i gat i on have f or es t al l ed anyocca s i on fo r m eani ngful r el i ef. ” A r tw ay v. A t t or ney G en. N

. J. , 8 1 F. 3d 1 2 3 5 , 1 2 4 6 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 6 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted).
H er e, t her e has been a chang e i n t he ci r cumst ance s t hat e x is te d a t th e tim e T h o m a s f ile d h is p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w , i

. e. , t he B I A s ubs equent l ygr ant ed hi s m ot i on for r econs i der at i on. T he B I A ’ s m er e gr antof a mot i on fo rr e c o ns i der at i on, how ever , does noti n i t s el f r endert he pet i t i on forr evi ew m oot
. R ather , i t i s t he s ubs t an ce o f the B IA ’ s s ubs equentdeci s i on, upon r econs i der at i on, t hat det erm i nes w hether t her e i s s t i l l a l i ve i s s ue fo r th e c o u rto f a p p ea ls to re so lve. F o r ex am p le, if t h e B IA ’s s ubs equentdeci s i on s ubs t ant i vel yal t er ed the r at i o deci dendiin i t s ear l i erdi s pos i t i on and oper at ed t o vaca t e the B I A ’ s ear l i er d e c isio n , the n th e p e tit io n f o r re v ie w o f

th e e a rlier d e c isio n is w i t houteff

ectbeca us e t her e i s no l onger any or der ordeci s i on forthe courtof appe al s t o r evi ew . O n t he otherhand, i f the B IA ’s s u b se q u e n t d e c isio n d id n o t m a ter iallya lter th e ra tio n a le o f th e e a rlier ru lin g , th a t ru lin g re m a in s e f f e c tiv e a n d su b

jec t to ju d ic ia l r e v ie w b yth e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls

. O urs i s t ercour t s of appe al s have e m pl oy ed thi s s ort of s ubs t ant i ve ana l y s i s i n det erm i ni ng w hethert her e i s s t il l a l i ve12 con tr over s yt o be r es ol ved. For exampl e, i n J a g g e rn a u th , t he E l eventh C ir cu itconcl uded thatt he B I A ’ s or dergr ant i ng r econs i der at i on di d not vaca t e t he B I A ’ s or i gi nal deci s i on. 432 F. 3d at1350- 52. T he El eventh C i r cui tacknow l edged thatt he s econd de ci s i on cont ai ned s om e addi t i onal comm ent arybyt he B IA ab o u t th e p rop ri etyo f it s o ri g inal ruli n g . T h e C o u rt concl uded, how ever , t hatt hi s comm ent ary di d notal t ert he ef fe cti v en ess o f th e o ri g in al ord er ina sm u ch as th e B IA “expl i ci t l y ” uphel d i t s or igina l or derand not ed thati thad

“‘ act ed pr oper l y . ’ ” I

d. at1351. Fur t her m or e, the addi t i onal c o m m e n tar yw a s n o t in c o rp o ra ted in to th e o rig in a l o rd e r, an d it d id n o t c h a n g e th e s u b s t a n c e o f th e o ri g in a l o rd e r. I d. T he C our tdet erm i ned, t her efor e, t hatithad j ur i s di ct i on overt he p e titio n f o r r e v ie w o f

th e B IA ’s o ri g in a l o rd e r. I d. a t 1 3 5 2

. Si m i l ar l y , i n P l as enci a-A yala v. Mukas ey , 516 F. 3d 738 ( 9t h C i r . 2 0 0 8) , t he N i nt h C i r cui tcons i der ed w hetheri thad juri sd ict ion o v er a p eti ti o n fo r rev iew o f a d ec isi o n o f th e B IA in li g h t of

the B IA ’s su b seq u en t ord er g ran ti n g the a li en ’s m o tio n f o r re c o n sid e ra tio n . T h e C o u rt a g re e d w ith th e E lev e n th C i r cui t ’ s appr oach i n J

a g g e rn a u th , d e c lar in g th a t [w ] her e t he B I A ’ s deci s i on gr ant i ng a mot i on for r econs i der at i on expr es s l yaff i r m s t he B I A ’ s pr i or d e c isi o n a n d its a n a ly sis d o e s n o t sig n if ica n tly di ffe r , t her e i s l i t t le re as on t o r equi r e “the pet i t i onert o r ai s e the i dent i cal i s s ue aga i n i n a pet i t i on t o r evi ew t he B IA ’ s deci s i on on t he13 m ot i on t o r econs i der

. ” D e sta [ v . A sh c ro ft ] , 329 F

. 3 d [1 1 7 9 , ] 11 8 4 [(9 th C ir

. 2 0 0 3 )]

. St one r ecogni zes t hatC ongr es s cre ated pa r al l el pr oces s es of admi ni s t r at i ve and j udi ci al r evi ew of t he B I A ’ s deci s i ons t o expedi t e the r emoval pr oces s . O nce a pet i t i on for r evi ew has been f i l ed, fe d era l co u rt juri sd ict ion is d ives ted on lyw h ere th e B I A su b se q u e n tlyv a c a tes o r m a ter ially c h a n g e s t h e d e c i s i o n u n d e rr e v i e w. I d. a t 7 4 5 , o v e r ru l e d o n o t h e r g r o u n d s b y M ar m ol ej o- C am

pos v. H older , 5 5 8 F

. 3 d 9 0 3 , 9 1 1 (9th C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ) (en b an c).
I n contr as tt o J

a g g e rn a u th and P la se n c ia -A y a la , the Si xt h C i r cui tdeci ded i n Mu Ju Li v. Mukas ey , 5 1 5 F .3 d 5 7 5 (6 th C i r . 20 0 8 ) , t hatt he B I A ’ s gr antof an a l i en’ s m ot i on for r econs i der at i on eff

ect i vel y vaca t ed the B I A ’ s or i gi nal deci s i on. I n Mu J u Li , t he a li en s oughtr econs i der at i on, cont endi ng t hat t he B I A had negl ect ed t o addr es s her pr i m ary ar gum ent , w hi ch so u g h t r eli ef

u n d er a sp ec ifi c s tatu toryp rov isi o n . T h e B IA a c k n o w led g e d th a t ith a d f a il e d to a d d re ss th is a rg u m e n t, g ran ted re co n side rati o n , an d ex p la in ed w h ythe s tatu tory pr ovi s i on on w hi ch t he al i en r el i ed w as i nappl i cabl e. T he al i en di d not s eek r evi ew of t he B I A ’ s s econd deci s i on g ran ti ng r ec o n side rati o n . T h e g o v ern m en t argu ed that the a li en ’ s pet i t i on f o r re v iew o f

th e f irst d e c isio n w a s n o lo n g e r re v iew a b le b ec au se th e su b se q u en t dec isi o n ef fe cti v elyv ac ated the B IA ’s ear l i erdeci s i on. T he C our t agr eed. I t expl ai ned t hat“w hen the B I A gr ant s a mot i on t o rec o n si derand–af t ercons i der i ng t he14 iss u e s a f re sh

– re n d e rs a n e w d e c isio n a d d re ss in g th e a rg u m e n ts r ai s ed, t he or i gi nal or der has been vaca t ed and a n ew o r der ent er ed i n i t s pl ace . ” I

d. a t 5 7 8

. Ba s e d o n t h i s r e as oni ng, t he Si xt h C i r cui tconcl uded thati tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on overt he a lie n ’s p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w o f t h e B I A ’s in itia l d e c is io n . I d. at 578- 79.
T h e q u esti o n fo r th is C o u rt , then , is w h ethe r th e B IA ’s J une 2009 dec i s i on vaca t ed or m at er i al l y al t er ed i t s N ovember 2008 deci s i on. A ft ers crut i ni zi ng t he B I A ’ s J une 2009 dec i s i on, w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e c irc u m sta n c e s h e re a re m o re a n a lo g o u s to t hos e i n J

a g g e rn a u th and P la se n c ia

-A y a la . F irst, itis sig n if ica n t th a t th e Ju n e 2 0 0 9 d e c is io n d id n o t ex p licitlysta te t hati tw as m odi fy i ng, r ever s i ng or vaca t i ng t he N ovember2008 deci s i on. R ather , t he B IA ex pl ai ned thati tw as gr ant i ng r econs i der ati o n beca us e i t s “pr i ordeci s i on cont ai ns a fa ctual e rro r a n d th e re f

o re w e w ill re c o n sid e r th e d e c isio n in o rd e r to corr ectourerr orand cl ar i fyt he r ecor d

. ” In ot herw or ds , t he purpos e of gr ant i ng r econs i d e r a t i o n was l i m i t ed t o corr ect i ng t he fac tual err or . I ndeed, i n t he verynexts ent ence , t he B I A s t at ed th a t it “ o n c e a g a in c o n c lu d e [ d ] th a t [ T h o m a s] [ w a ]s r e m o v a b le an d ineligible f

o r ca n ce lla tio n o f re m o v al. ” A fter the B IA corr ect ed i t s fac tual m i s ch ar act er i zat i on of the I J ’ s or der , t he B I A s t at ed thati t s N ovember 2008 deci s i on “pr oper l yeval uat ed t h e l e g a l q u e s t i o n p r e s e n t e d o n a p p e a l [

. ] ” Th e BI A t hen d e c l a r e d : “ F o r t h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d i n o u r p r i o r d e c i s i o n , we cont i nue t o hol d t hat[Thom as ] i s i nel i gi bl e for canc el l at i on of re m o v a l[ .]” In s h o rt , it a d h e re d to its e a rl ie r l e g a l a n a lysis . W e15 c o n c lu d e , th e re f

o re , th a t th e Ju n e 2 0 0 9 d e c isio n d id n o t v a c a te or subst anti al l ym od if

y t he N ov em ber 200 8 d eci si on . A s a cons equenc e, t he pet i t i on forr evi ew of the N ovember2008 deci s i on cont i nues t o pr es enta l i ve cont r over s y forourj udi ci al r e v i e w. II I.
T hom as cont ends t hat t he B I A err ed i n i t s det erm i nat i on t hathi s 1996 and hi s 1998 convi ct i ons qual i fi ed as aggr avat ed fel oni es , a det er m i nat i on t hatr ender ed hi m i nel i gi bl e for canc el l at i on of r e mova l

. W hetherT hom as ’ s convi ct i ons qual i fy as a g g rav ated fe lon ies i s a q u esti o n o f la w su b ject t o p lena ry re v ie w . E vans on v. A t t or ney G en. , 5 5 0 F

. 3 d 2 8 4 , 2 8 8 (3d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ); G ar ci a v. A t t or ney G en. , 4 6 2 F

. 3 d 2 8 7 , 2 9 0 -91 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ).
A n al i en mayobt ai n r el i ef f r om r emoval i f he qua l ifi es f o r c a n c e llatio n o f

re m o v a l u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 b . In o rd e r to b e e lig ib le f

o r a d isc re tio n a ryg ra n t o f c a n c e llatio n o f re m o v a l, a n a lie n m u s t s a tis f

yf o u r r e q u ir e m e n ts
. I

d. § 1229b( b)

. O ne of t hes e r equi r ement s i s t hatt he al i en has not been convi ct ed of a n off ense un der 8 U

. S

. C

. § 12 27 (a) (2)

. T hat pr ov i si on renders a cri m i nal al i en d epo rt able i f he c o m m it t ed cert ai n cri m es, inclu d ing an “a g g rav ated fel ony . ” 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 2 7 (a)(2)(A )(i ii ).

“ [ A ]g g ra v a te d f

e lo n y ” is d e f

in e d to i n c lu d e , in tera lia , “illicit t r aff i cki ng i n a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance ( as defi ned i n s ect i on 802 o f T itl e 2 1 ), in c lu d in g a d ru g tra f f ick in g c rim e (a s d e f

in e d in16 s ect i on 924( c) of Ti t l e 18) [. ] ” 8 U

. S. C

. § 1101( a) ( 43) ( B )

. T he t erm “drug t r aff

i cki ng cr i m e” i n § 924( c) ( 2) “means anyfel ony puni s habl e under ” thr ee s peci fi ed fe der al s t atut es , one of w hi ch is th e C o n tr o ll ed S u b s tanc es A ct. 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 9 2 4 (c)(2). Fur t herm or e, t he def

i ni t i on of aggr avat ed fe lonys peci fi es t hat t he “t erm appl i es ” r egar dl es s of w hethert he off ens e vi ol at es
“ F e d e ra l o r S ta te la w .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 3 ).
I n Ger bi er , w e adopt ed the appr oach a dvance d byt he B I A fordet erm i ni ng w hen a s t at e drug offe ns e co n sti tut es an aggr avat ed fe l ony . 280 F. 3d at 304. T hatappr oach r ecogni zed t w o r out es : t he i ll i ci tt r aff i cki ng r out e and the hypot het i cal f e d e ra l f e lo n yro u te
. I

d. at 305- 06. U ndert he i l l i ci tt r aff i cki ng r out e, a s t at e drug convi ct i on w i l l not qual i fy as an aggr avat ed fel onyunl es s “( 1) t he off ens e [i s ] a fel ony under t he l aw of the co n v ict ing so v ere ign ; and (2) the o ff en se . . . co n ta in [ s ] a ‘traf fick ing elem en t’

– i

. e. , i t m us t i nvol ve ‘ t he unl aw ful t r adi ng ordeal i ng of a c ont r ol l ed s ubstan ce . ’” I d. at305 ( ci t at i on o m itted). B ec au se T h o m as’s c o n v ict ion s w ere m isde m ea n o rs u n d e r N e w Y o rk P e n a l L a w , s ee N

. Y

. Penal L aw § 221. 40, t hos e convi ct i ons cannot , by defi ni t i on, be aggr avat ed fe l oni es p u rs u a n t to th e illic it tr a f f ic k in g ro u te
.

“ T h e se c o n d ro u te b yw h ich a sta te d ru g c o n v ictio n c o u ld be an aggr avat ed fe l onyundert he I N A i s t he hypot het i cal feder al fel onyr out e[. ] ” I d. at306 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)

. U nderthis rout e, a s t at e convi ct i on, r egar dl es s of w hetheri ti s cl as s i fi ed as a misd em eanor , qual i fi es as an17 aggr avat ed fe l onyi f i ti s “‘ puni s habl e’ under o n e of the thr ee s peci fi ed s t atut es i f feder al l ypr os ecut ed” a nd “w oul d be puni s habl e b y a term of i m pr i s onm entof overone y ear . ” I d. ( quot i ng S t e e l e v . Bl a c km an , 2 3 6 F

. 3 d 1 3 0 , 1 3 5 -36 (3d C ir

. 2001) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)

. I n ot herw or ds , i f the “s t at e drug conv i ct i on i s puni s habl e as a fe l onyundert he C ont r ol l ed Subs t ance s A ct [, ] ” i tm aycons t i tut e an agg rav at ed fel onypur s uantt o t he hypothet i cal fede r al fel onyr out e. G er bi er , 2 8 0 F .3 d a t 3 1 5 ; L o p ez v. G onz al es , 549 U

. S. 47, 55 ( 2006) ( decl ar i ng t hat“[u] nl es s a s t at e off ens e i s puni s habl e as a fe der al fel onyi tdoes notcount ”)

. I n E vans on , w e not ed that undert he hypot het ical fe der al fel onyr out e a “ s t at e mar i j uana convi ct i on i s . . . onl yequi val entt o a fe der al drug fel onyi f the offe ns e i nvol ved paym entorm or e than a smal l amount of m a ri ju a n a .” 5 5 0 F .3 d a t 2 8 9

. O u r a n a ly sis o f

th e h yp o th e tica l f

e d e ra l f e lo n yro u te re q u ir e s a p p lic a tio n o f

th e f o r m a l c a te g o ri c a l a p p ro a c h

. I d. at 290. T hi s appr oach w as des cr ibed i n Tayl orv. U ni t ed Stat es , 4 9 5 U

. S

. 5 7 5 (19 9 0 ). In th at c a s e, th e S u p rem e C o u rt cons i der ed w h ethe r th e d ef en d an t’ s state co n v ict ion fo r bu rglary co n sti tuted a “b u rglary ” fo r p u rpo ses of 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 9 2 4 (e), th e re b y ju stif

y in g th e a p p lica tio n o f

a se n ten c in g e n h a n c e m e n t. T he C our tconcl uded t hat t he t erm “bur gl ary ” i n § 924( e) di d not depend on t he spec i fi c defi ni t i on s et for t h bya s t at e. R ather , t he t erm forpurpos es of § 9 2 4 (e) m eantt he gene r i c cr i m e of bur gl aryt hat“r egar dl es s of i t s exac tdefi ni t i on orl abel , ha[s ] t he bas i c el ement of unl aw ful orunpr i vi l eged e nt r yi nt o, or18 re m a in in g in , a b u ild in g o r stru c tu re , w ith in ten t to c o m m it a cr i m e. ” I

d. at 599. I n or der t o det erm i ne i f a de fenda nt ’ s pr i or o ff en se w ar ra n ts the sen tenc ing en h an ce m en t un d er § 9 2 4 (e), t he C our t n o ted t hatt he s ent enci ng cour tw i l l appl y“a f or m al cat egor i cal appr oach, l ooki ng onl y t o t he s t atut or ydefi ni t i ons of t he p ri or offen se, and no t t o the part i cularfact s und erl y i ng t ho se convi ct i ons . ” I

d. a t 6 0 0 ; s ee G onz al es v. D uenas -A l var ez , 549 U

. S. 183, 186 ( 2007) ( appl y i ng t he ca t egor i cal appr oach t o an i m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ng and not i ng t hatundert he for m al cat egor i cal appr oach a cour t“s houl d nor m al l y loo k nott o t he f a c ts o f th e p a rticu la r p r io r c a se , b u t ra th e r to th e sta te s tatu te d ef ining the c ri m e o f c o n v ict ion ”). Tayl or recogn i zed that i n s om e st at es a bu rgl aryoff ense w as b roa d er tha n the § 92 4 (e) g en eric d ef init ion o f b u rglary

. In t hat event , t he C our ti ns t ruct ed, t he s ent enci ng cour ti s per m i t t ed “t o go bey ond t he mer e fac t of convi ct i on . . . w her e a j ur yw as a c tu a lly re q u ir e d to f

in d a l l th e e le m e n ts o f

g e n e ri c b u rg la ry.” I d. at 60 2

. T h is m o d ifi ed ap p roa ch p erm it s a se n tenc ing co u rt t o fi nd t hat a st at e offens e const i tut es a gene r i c bur gl aryunder § 9 2 4 (e ) if

“ th e c h a rg in g p a p e r a n d ju ryin s tr u c tio n s a c tu a lly re q u ire d th e ju ryto f

in d a ll th e e lem e n ts o f g e n e ric b u rg lar yin or dert o convi ctt he def endant

. ” I

d.
I n t hi s cas e, appl i cat i on of the form al cat egor i cal appr o a c h r e q u i r e s e x a mi n a t i o n o f t h e New Y o r k s t a tu t e u nder w hi ch T hom as w as convi ct ed, w i t hout cons i der at i on of the par t i cul arfac t s under l y i ng t he convi ct i on, t o det erm i ne w hether19 i ti s puni s habl e as a fe l ony under § 841( a) ( 1) of the C ont r ol l ed S u b s ta n c e s A c t f

o r k n o w in g lyd istrib u tin g o r p o ss e ss in g w ith th e in te n t to d is tr ib u te a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e . G a rc ia , 462 F. 3d at29 1. S ect i on 22 1. 40 of the N e w Y ork P enal La w provides, w i t h an exc ept i on not r el evant her e, t hat“[a ] per s on i s gui l t yof cr i m i nal s al e of mar i huana i n t he fourt h degr ee w hen he k n o w in g lya n d u n law f

u lly se lls m a rih u a n a [ .]” T h e ter m “ se ll” i s define d bys t atut e as m eani ng “t o s el l , excha nge, gi ve or d isp o se o f

to a n o th e r[ .]” N .Y

. P e n a l L a w § 2 2 0 .0 0 (1 ). T h is defi ni t i on gi ves r i s e t o foural t ernat i ve gr ounds fores t abl i s hi ng cr i m i nal cul pabi l i t yu n d er the s t atut e. O nl ys el l i ng and excha ngi ng m ar i

j uana, how ever , qual i fyas t he hypot het i cal f e d e r a l f e l o n y o f d i s t r i b u t i n g ma r i j u a n a i n v i o l a t i o n o f

2 1 U. S

. C. § 8 4 1 (a ). E vans on , 5 5 0 F .3 d a t 2 8 9 (d e c lar in g th a t “[ a ] sta te m ar i j u an a convi ct i on i s t her efor e onl yequi val entt o a fe der al drug fel onyi f the off

ens e i n v o lved paym entorm or e than a s m al l amount of m ar i

j uana” ) ( ci t i ng S tee le , 2 3 6 F

. 3 d a t 1 3 7 ). M er el ygi ving o r di s pos i ng of m ar i j uana doe s notcons t i tut e a h yp o th e tic a l f

e d e ra l f e lo n y . S tee le , 236 F. 3d at131 ( obs ervi ng t hat“one m ay be convi ct ed of ‘ cr i m i nal s al e” [ under§ 221. 40] w ith o u t ev iden ce o f a sale a s co m m o n lyu n d erstoo d ”). T herefore, becau se § 22 0. 00 (1) i s in the dis j un ct i ve an d b ecause s om e cr i m i nal s al es under§ 221. 40 m i ghtnotcons t i tut e an a g g ra v a te d f

e lo n y , S tee le , 236 F. 3d at131, w e mustdepartfr om t he for m al cat egor i cal appr oach and appl y the m odi fi ed c a te g o ri c a l a p p ro a c h

. G a rc ia , 4 6 2 F .3 d a t 2 9 1 -9 2 ; s e e als o E vans on , 5 5 0 F .3 d a t 2 9 0

.20 Al t h o u gh Tayl orar t i cul at ed the modi fi ed ca t egor i cal a p p r o a c h i n a c a s e i n v o l v i n g a c o n v i c t i o n b yj u r y , t h e S u p r e me C our tdet erm i ned i n Shepar d v. U ni t ed Stat es , 54 4 U

. S. 13 ( 2005) , tha ts ent enci ng cour t s coul d appl yt he modi fi ed c a teg o ric a l ap p ro a c h to c o n v ictio n s o b tain e d p u rsu a n t to g u ilty p le a s . I d. a t 1 9 . It ex p lain e d th a t Ta y l or di d notl i m i tt he evi dence t hat m ay be cons i der ed undert hi s m odi fi ed appr oach “s t r i ct l yt o char ges and [j ur y ] i ns t ruct i ons . . . s i nce a convi ct i on m i ghtfol l ow t r i al t o a j udge al one or a pl ea of gui l t y . ” I d. at20. T h e C ou rt refused, ho w ever, t o al l ow a sent encing court t o co n s i d er u n d er the m o d ifi ed ca tego ri ca l app roa ch a p o li ce rep o rt s ubm i t t ed w i t h t he appl i cat i on forthe i s s uance of cr i m i nal compl ai nt
. I t hel d t hatundert he modi fi ed ca t egor i cal appr oach t h e i n q u i r y
to d e te rm i n e w h e th e r a p le a o f g u ilty . . . n e c e ss a rilya d m itt e d e le m e n ts o f th e g e n e ric offe ns e i s l i m i t ed t o t he t erm s of the cha rging do cu m en t , t he t erm s of a pl ea a gr eementor t r ans cr i ptof col l oquybetw een j udge and defe ndanti n w h i ch the fa ctual bas i s fort he pl ea wa s c o n f

i r me d b yt h e de f

e n d a n to rt o s o me compar abl e j udi ci al r ecor d of thi s i nfor m at i on. I d. a t 2 6

. T hom as ’ s convi ct i ons under § 2 2 1. 40 ar e dat ed, t o s ay the l east
. T he r ecords add uced by T ho m as i n an effo rt to es t abl i s h t hathe had notbeen c onvi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l onyThe g overnment contends th at th e BIA’s consideration of 4 thepo lic eof

fi c e rs ’s writt e n s tate me nts i s c o ns ist e nt w iththeSup reme Court’s decision in Nijhaw an v. Holder , __ U.S. __, 129 S. Ct. 2294, 2303 (2009), whic h held that consi d er ation of sentenc ing related mate ri a l is pe rm itt e d und er themodif ie d c ate g oric a l a

pp ro a c h in 21 ar e s par s e. W i t h r es pect t o t he D ece m ber10, 1996 convi ct i on, N o . 96x 07 28 66 , t here i s the p oli ce of fi cer’ s w ri t t en st at em e n t, a pl ea c ol l oquy , w hatappea r s t o be a docketpage, and a cert i fi cat e of di s pos i t i on. Fort he J anuary 2, 1998 convi ct i on, N o. 9 7 x 0 7 4755, t he r ecor d befor e us cont ai ns onl yt he pol i ce offi cer ’ s w r i t t en s t at ement and a ce rt i fi cat e of di s pos i t i on. T h e re a re n o d o c u m e n ts re latin g to th e g u iltyp lea p ro c e e d in g in t he 1998 convi ct i on. T he B I A det er m i ned that i tcoul d cons i dert he pol i ce o f f ice rs’ s w ritten stat em ents , w h ich it ch a ra c ter ize d a s a f f id a v its o f p rob ab le ca u se, be ca u se t h e yw ere ch arg ing d o cu m en ts. It e x p lain e d th a t in “ N e w Y o rk , a c rim in a l ac tio n c o m m e n c e s w ith the fi l i ng of an a ccus at or yi ns t rum ent ” and the off i cer’s s t at ement s w er e “the acc us at or yi ns t rum ent [s ] pr epar ed byt he arr es t i ng offi cer [s ] i n connec t i on w i t h t he fi l i ng of [the] cr i m i nal compl ai nt [s]. ” B eca us e the s t at ement s i ndi cat ed thatT hom as excha nged mar i

j uana f orm oney , t he B I A concl ud ed thatt he s t at ement s es t abli s hed thatT hom as ’ s convi ct i ons i nvol ved r e mu n e r a t i v e s a l e s t h a two u l d b e p u n i s ha b l e u n d e r2 1 U. S

. C. § 8 4 1 o f t h e Co n t r o l l e d S u b s t a n c e A c t wh i c h ma k e s i ta c r i me to , in tera lia , di s t r i but e mar i j uana. 4deter mining whe ther a

n alien’s c onviction constituted an ag gravated felony . In a

f o o tnote, the g overnment acknowle dg ed that its argument might n ot b epe rs ua siv ea s Nijhaw an could be distinguished on the basis th atit concer

ned the a

pproac h to be employed for a “circumstance -spec ific ”o f f en s e , a s opp o s e d

toa “ g eneric” c rime such as an “ illicit traf

ficking ” off

ense. This very distinction was pointed out by the Supreme Court in Carachuri-Rosendo v. H older ,

__ U. S. __, 130 S. Ct. 2577, 2586 n.11 (2010). For that rea son, we c onclude Nijhaw an provides no support for the g over nment’s argument that the B IA a pp ropriate ly

c on sid e re d th epo lic eof

fi c e r s ’ s wri tten s tate me nts
. We li mit our discus sio n to wh e ther t hewritt e n s tate me nts 5 constitute an information or a misdemeanor compl aint under N ew Yo rk Pe nal L aw § 10 0. 10 be c a us eth e other

a c c us ator

y ins tr uments arenot applicable here. 22 W e a c c e p t th a t th e p o lice o f f ice r’s w ritten sta tem e n ts pl ay ed a r ol e i n t he i ni t i at i o n of thi s par t i cul arcr i m i nal act i on. N o n ethe less, w e a re u n w il li n g to ac ce p t th e B IA ’s ch ara cterizati o n o f th e statem en ts as the re leva n t acc u sa to ry i n s t ru me n t s u n d e rNe w Yo r k Cr i m. P r o c . L a w § 1 0 0

. 1 0 , a s we ar e unabl e t o find, and w e have notbeen di r ect ed t o, any author i t yes t abl i s hi ng t hata pol i ce of fi cer ’ s l one w r i t t en s t at ement, p uni s habl e i f fa l s e under§ 210. 45, cons t i tut es an “i nfor m at i on” ora “mi s demeanor compl ai nt
. ” Fur t her m or e, 5 even if t he s t at ement s al one qual i fi ed as i nfor m at i ons or m i s demeanorcompl ai nt s , w i t houts om e j udi ci al i ndi cat i on of w h ethe r th e statem en t w as p roc esse d as a n inf o rm a ti o n o r a m isd e m e a n o r c o m p lain t, w e w o u ld b e u n a b le to d e ter m in e if su c h w ritt e n sta tem e n ts w e re th e re lev a n t ch a rg in g d o c u m e n ts23 underN ew Y or k l aw . O ur i nabi l i t yw oul d s t em from t he fa ct t hata mi s demeanorcompl ai nt“must

. . . be r ep lace d b y an i nfor m at i on” unl es s t he def endant“w ai ve[s ] pr os ecut i on by i nfor m at i on an d consent [s ] t o be pr os ecut ed upon the m isde m ea n o r co m p lai n t. ” N

. Y

. C ri m . P roc . L aw § § 1 7 0

. 6 5 (1), ( 3)

. A s a r es ul t , w i t houtdocument at i on as t o t he type of a c c u sa to r y i n s tru m e n t th a t w a s f iled , w e c o u ld n o t as c e rta in if t he def endanthad t o w ai ve hi s ri g h t t o pr os ecut i on by i nfor m at i on. I n t he abs ence of s uch document at i on, i tw oul d be uncl earw hethert he w r i t t en st at ement s cons t i tut ed the r el evant c h a rg in g d o c u m e n ts u n d e r N e w Y o rk la w . See Evans on , 550 F .3 d a t 2 9 3 n .7 (n o tin g th a t, be c a u se th e c rim in a l co m p lain t, w hi ch appe nded an affi davi t of pr obabl e ca us e, w as s uper cede d byt he cr i m i nal i nfor m at i on, i tw as nott he r el evantchar ging d o c u m e n t)

. W e ar e cogni zantt hat t he pl ea col l oquy fort he D ece m ber 10, 1996 convi ct i on, N o. 96x072866, es t abl i s hed t hatT hom as w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o pr os ecut i on byan i nfor m at i on. T her efor e, t he govern m en t m i ghts ucce s s ful l yar gue on r emand t hatt he pol i ce o ff

icer ’ s w r i t t en s t at ement , as s um i ng t hati tcoul d be r eg a r d e d a s a n a c c u s a t o r yi n s t ru me n t , c o n s t i tu t e d t h e r e l e vant char gi ng document and pr ovi ded evi dence fr om t he r ecor d of convi ct i on es t abl i s hi ng t hat T hom as engage d i n a r emuner at i ve sal e of m ari

j uan a. T his argum ent fal l s short i n o ur vi ew becau se i tfai l s t o r ecogni ze thata courti s per m i t t ed undert he modi fi ed c a t e go r i c a l a pp r oa c h t o c on s ul tt he c ha r gi ng do c uments , t ogetherw i t h ot herj udi ci al r ecor ds , “t o det erm i ne w hat24 el ement s for m ed the basi s fora def endant ’ s under l y i ng convi ct i on. ” E vans on , 550 F. 3d at291 ( ci t i ng Tayl or , 49 5 U. S. a t 6 0 2 ). Tayl ori n s t ru c t e d t h a tt h e p u rp o s e o f g o i n g “bey ond t he mer e fa ctof convi ct i on” w as t o det erm i ne w hethert her e w as a f in d in g o f e a c h e le m e n t n e c e ss a ryto c o n v ict th e d e f e n d a n t. 4 9 5 U .S . a t 6 0 2

. Sh epa rd confi r m ed this foc us . I texpl ai ned t ha t , u n d e rt h e mod i f

i e d c a t e g o r i c a l a p p r o a c h , a c o u r tma ynot l ook t o a pol i ce of

fi cer ’ s r epor t appende d t o t he appl i cat i on for t he i s s uance of a c r i m i nal co m p lai ntbeca us e the purpos e of cons u l t i n g r e c o r d s i s t o d e t e r mi n e whe t h e r d u r i n g a p l ea a defe ndant“nec es s ar i l yadmi t t ed el ement s ” of the off ens e. 544 U

. S. at26. I n C ar achur i

- R os endo v. H older , the S u p rem e C o u rt f o c u se d o n w h e th e r th e re c o rd o f th e d e f e n d a n t’s s e c o n d sta te m i s demean o r c onvi ct i on cont ai ned any“fi ndi ng of the fa ctof h is p r io r d ru g o f

f e n se [ ,]” w h ich w o u ld re n d e r th e se c o n d sta te m i sdem eano r con vict i on a reci divi stsi m ple possess i on off ense puni s habl e undert he C ont r ol l ed Subs t ance s A ct , h ence an ag g rav ated fe lon y . 1 3 0 S

. C t. 2 5 7 7 , 2 5 8 6 (20 1 0 ). B ec au se th ere w a s n o “ f

in d in g o f re c id iv ism ” in th e re c o rd o f th e se c o n d sta te m isde m ea n o r co n v ict io n , id. , t he C our tr ej ect ed the g o v e r n m e n t’s p o sitio n w h ich re lied o n w h a t th e a lien “ c o u ld have be en convi ct ed of .

. . butw as not
. ” I d. a t 2 5 8 7

. I n S tee le , 2 3 6 F

. 3 d at 13 6 -37 , w e c o n side red the v ery i s s ue addr es s ed i n C ar achur i

- R os endo

. T h ere , w e w ere p rese n ted w ith the q u esti o n w h ethe r an yo f th e a li en ’s m i s demeanorconvi c t i o n s f o r§ 2 2 1

. 4 0 c o ns t i tut ed an a ggr avat ed fel ony beca us e i t w as puni s habl e under t he C ont r ol l ed25 Subst ance s A ctas a r ecidi vi s ts i m pl e pos s es s i on. 236 F. 3d at 137 ( ci t i ng 21 U

. S. C

. § 844)

. W e hee ded Tayl or ’ s i ns t ruct i on t hatt he modi fi ed ca t egorical appr oach mustfocus on w hether the re co rd f

o r th e o ff

en se o f c o n v ict ion ev ince s the n ec essa ry f a c tu a l f i n d i n g s o ra d m i s s i o n s f

o r t h e s t a tu t e o f

c o n v i c t i o n . We d e c lar e d th a t [ o]ne c a n n o t su f

f e r th e d isa b ili ties a ss o c iate d w ith h a v i n g b e e n 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 ny un l ess on e has been con vict ed o f a felony

. T his , of cour s e, m eans t hatt her e mu st be a j udi ci al d eterm ination b ey o n d a re aso n ab le do u b t of ev ery el ement of a fe l onyora cons t i tut i onal l yval i d pl ea t hat encom passes each of t ho se el em ents
. I d. at136- 37. W e w er e tr oubl ed byt he gr ave c ons equenc es t hat coul d at t ach t o t he mi s demeanorchar ges i f theyqual i fi ed as an agg ravat ed fe l on y , no t i ng t hat s uch charges

a re f re q u e n tlyn o t ad d re ss e d b ya d e f e n d a n t w ith t he s ame c ar e and caut i on as a fe l onyi ndi ctm ent w i t h it s m ore ser i ou s, i m m ediat e con seque n ces. T h i s c o n c e r n c o u n s e l s , a ta mi n i mu m, t h a twe i ns i s ton s uffi ci ent for m al i t y i n t he mi s demeanor pr ocee di ng t o as s ur e t hat eac h and eve r yel ement o f the

. . . fede r al fel onyi s focus ed on and s peci fi cal l yaddr es s ed i n t hatpr ocee di ng. I d. at 13 7

. B ec au se th e re c idivistelem en t nec essa ryfo r a26 fede r al fel onyhad neverbeen l i t i gat ed and ther e w as no j udi ci al d e ter m in a tio n re g a rd in g th a t ele m e n t, w e c o n c lu d e d th a t S tee le h a d n o tb e e n 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. I n U ni t ed Stat es v. Johns on , 5 8 7 F

. 3 d 2 0 3 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ), w e qu esti o n ed w h ethe r the reco rds o f th e state c o n v ict ion w ere suffici ent un der t he m od i fi ed cat ego ri cal app roach t o est abli sh t he el ement s nece s s aryt o cons t i tut e a cr i m e of vi ol ence . T her e, t he pl ea a gr eementw as “notpar t i cul arly h el pful ” and the col l oquyw as “notavai l abl e. ” I d. at206 ( i nterna l quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed)

. A s a r es ul t , t he governm entur ged the s ent enci ng cour t i n appl y i ng t he modi fi ed ca t egor i cal appr oach t o i nferfr om t he cr i m i nal i nfor m at i on, w hi ch w as t he cha r gi ng document , t hatt h e d efe ndant ’ s s i m pl e as s aul tconvi ct i on c o n s t i tu t e d a v i o l e n tc r i m e f o rp u rp o s e s o f

U

. S

. S

. G. § 4B 1. 2( a) ( 2)

. 58 7 F

. 3 d at 206. W e r ecogni zed thatt he cr i m i nal i nfor m at i on co u l d pr oper l ybe cons i der ed under Sh epa rd . B u t w e d id n o t b e liev e th a t w e c o u ld “ c o n c lu siv e ly det erm i ne, bas ed on the i nfo rm ati on al one, w hether[the defe ndant ] actual l yadmi t t ed” t he nec es s aryfac t s t o es t abl i s h a k n o w in g o r i n te n tio n a l a s s a u lt. I d. a t2 1 2

. As a r e s u l t , we decl i ned t o engage i n s uch a “s pecul at i ve exer ci s e. ” I d. at213. W e r e ma n d e d t h e c a s e f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s b e c a us e t he g o v e r n m e n th a d l o c a t e d a t r a n s c r i p to f t h e p l e a c o l l o q u y. T hatw e hes i t at ed t o s pecul at e i n Johns on s ugges t s t hat w e s h o u l d e x e r c i s e c a u t i o n h e r e a s w e l l

. T h o m a s p l e a d e d g u i l t y, butt he document at i on s uppor t i ng hi s t w o gui l t ypl eas i s s par s e.27 I ti s undi s put ed thatT hom as pl eade d gu il ty t o vi ol at i ng § 221. 40, w hi ch makes i ta cr i m i nal offe n se t o s el l m ar i j uana. A s w e n o ted a b o v e, i n li g h t of the d ef init ion o f “se ll , ” there are foural t ernat i ve grounds upon w hi ch cr i m i nal cul pabi l i t yunder th e s ta tu te m a yb e e s ta b lis h e d , i

. e. , s el l i ng, excha ngi ng, gi vi ng ordi s pos i ng o f m ar i

j uana. A ft ers crut i ni zi ng t he r ecor d, h o w e v e r, w e c a n n o t d e f in iti v e ly e sta b lish th a t T h o m a s a c tu a lly admi tt ed dur i ng t he gui l t ypl ea pr ocee di ngs t hathe s ol d or excha nged m ar i

j uana, w hi ch ar e t he onl y tw o gr ounds for concl udi ng t hata § 221. 40 convi ct i on cons t i tut es t he hypot het i cal f

e d e r a l fel onyof di s t r i but i ng m ar i j uana i n vi ol at i on o f § 8 4 1 (a ). O r di nar i l y , t he fac tual bas i s for t he pl ea appea r s i n the r ecor d of convi cti o n , and a c our tappl y i ng t he modi fi ed cat egor ical a p p r oach s houl d be abl e t o di s cern w hi ch of the al t ernat i ve el ement s a defenda nt “nec es s ar i l yadmi t t ed” dur i ng a g u ilty p le a c o llo q u y . Sh epa rd , 5 4 4 U. S. a t 2 6

. Th e fac t ual bas i s for T hom as ’ s pl ea coul d have be en pl ace d on t he r ecor d by i ncorp o rati n g t he w r i t t en s t at ementof the pol i ce of fi cerorby s peci fi c i nqui r yof Thom as dur i ng t he col l oquy . I n t hi s cas e, t her e i s no document at i on r el at i ve t o t he pl ea pr ocee di ng fort he J anuary 2, 1998 convi ct i on, N o. 97x074755. T he tr ans cr i ptof t he pl ea c o ll oquyfort he D ece m ber10, 1996 convi ct i on, N o. 96x072866, r evea l s t hatT hom as adm it te d not hi ng dur i ng t hat pl ea c ol l oquy . I ndeed, he neve rut t ere d a w or d. H i s couns el in f o rm e d th e C o u rt th a t T h o m a s w a s “ p lea d in g g u iltyto § 2 2 1 .4 0 in f

u ll sa tisf a c tio n .” In th e a b se n c e o f a sp e c if

ic28 r efe r ence t o t he pol i ce offi cer ’ s w r i t t en s t at ement , w e ca nnot cons t rue couns el ’ s entr y of a gui l t y pl ea on behal f of hi s cl i ent a s a n a d m iss io n to th e f a c ts s e t f o r th in th e sta tem e n t. N o r is t her e anyi nqui r ybyt he pr es i di ng j udge dur i ng t he gui l t ypl ea a s t o T h o m as’s s peci fi c conduc t
. T he C our tnevereven i nqui r ed w hetherT h o m as a g ree d w ith h is co u n sel’s rep rese n tat ion thathe w a s p le a d in g g u ilty.
B ec au se th e re co rds o f th ese § 2 2 1

. 4 0 co n v ict ion s are s i l entr egar di ng t he fa ctual bas i s fort he gui l t y pl eas , w e ca nnot concl us ively det er m i ne thatT hom as actual l yadmi t t ed thathe so ld o r exc hanged

m ar i j uana. I ti s eq u al l ypl aus i bl e that T hom as ’ s admi s s i on of gui l t u n d er § 221. 40 w as t o conduct w hi ch w oul d notco n sti tute a h yp o thetical fe d era l f e lo n y , i

. e. g iving o r disp o sing o f th e m ar ij u an a. T h e p o li ce o ff icers’s w ritten sta tem e n ts a re , the re f o re , o f n o a ss ista n c e to u s in det erm i n ing w hetherT hom as ’ s convi ct i ons qual i fyas agg ravat ed fe l on i es. T he gover nm ent cont ends t hat t he w r i t t en s t at ement s by t he pol i ce of

fi cer s , w h ich i tpr es um es cons t i tut ed the cha r gi ng d o cu m en ts, are su ff

ici en t un d er G a rc ia , 462 F. 3d 287. T her e, t he al i en had b ee n convi ct ed undera Penns y l vani a s t atut e that pr os cr i bed thr ee of

fens es : m anufa cturi ng, del i ver i ng, and pos s es s i ng w i t h t he i nt ent t o del i ver orm anufa ctur e a c ont r ol l ed su b sta n c e , 3 5 P a . S tat. A n n . § 7 8 0 -1 1 3 (a )(3 0 ). W e n o ted th a t it w as u n c l e a r whe t h e r t h e ma n u f a c tu r i n g p r o n g i n v o l v e d t he t r adi ng and deal i ng el ement r equi r ed t o demonst r at e t hat t he29 c o n v ictio n q u a lifie d a s a n a g g ra v a ted f e lo n yu n d e r th e ill icit t r aff i cki ng r out e. B eca us e the s t atut e cr i mi n a l i z e d s o me c o n duct w hi ch w oul d notcons t i tu t e an a ggr avat ed fe l ony , w e depa r t ed fr om t he f

o r m al cat egor i cal appr oach a nd cons i der ed the c h a rg in g d o c u m e n t, w h ich a lleg e d th a t th e a li e n h a d so ld m ar i j uana t o an u n d ercoveroffi cer . 462 F. 3d at289, 292. A l t hough t he al i en ent er ed an ope n pl ea t o vi ol at i ng § 780- 1 1 3 (a ) ( 3 0 ), w e c o n c lu d e d th a t th e c h a rg in g d o c u m e n t m a d e it

“ c lea r . . . th a t G a rc ia p led g u ilty to d e liv e ry a n d p o ss e ss io n w ith t he i nt ent t o del i ver [, ] ” as oppos ed t o t he manufactur i ng offe ns e. I d. a t 2 9 3

. T he governm ent ’ s r el i ance on G a rc ia i s m i s pl ace d. T he cr i m i nal i nfor m at i on i n G a rc ia s etfor t h a fa ctual bas i s for G ar ci a’ s pl ea that c o u ld nothave s uppor t ed a pr os ecut i on for vi ol at i on of the man u fa cturi ng pr ong of the s t atut e of convi ct i on. A s a r esul t , t he ave r m ent s i n t he cr i m i nal i nfor m at i on rul ed outt he pos s i bi l i t yt h at d u r i ng t he open pl ea G ar ci a admi t t ed t h at h e enga ged i n conductvi ol at i ve of the m anufa cturi ng pr ovi s i on. B yel i m i nat i ng t he manufactur i ng pr ong as t he fac tual bas i s fort he pl ea, t he cr i m i nal i nfor m at i on el i mi n a t e d t h e s o l e g r o u n d f o rf i n d i n g t h a tGar c i a ’ s o p e n pl ea wa s t o c o n d u c tth a td i d n o t c o n s t i tu t e a n a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n y . As a cons equenc e, t he cr i m i nal i nfor m ati o n m ade i t“cl ear ” that G ar ci a pl ed gui l t y to t he el ement s of del i veryand pos s es s i on w ith in te n t to d e liv e r u n d e r t h e s ta tu te
. U nl i ke G a rc ia , t he ave r m ent s i n t he w r i t t en st at ement s of30 t he pol i ce of

fi cer s t hatT hom as r ece i ved moneyi n excha nge for m a riju a n a p ro v id e d a f

a c tu a l b a sis f

o r T h o m a s to p lea d g u iltyto e a c h o f th e a lte rn a tiv e e le m e n ts u n d e r § 2 2 1 .4 0 , i

. e. , “se ll [in g ], e x c h a n g [ in g ], g iv [ in g ] o r d is p o s[ in g ] o f ” th e m a riju a n a to anotherper s on. N

. Y

. Penal L aw §§ 220. 00, 221. 40. A ccor di ngl y , t he w r i t t en s t at ement s , i f they w ere t he cha r gi ng documen ts, d id notnarr ow t he fa ctual bas i s fort he pl ea t o t he typ e o f o ff

en se that n ec essa ri ly en tai led a rem u n era ti v e sa le. In ot herw or ds , t he w r i t t en s t atem ent s do notm ake i tcl eart hat T hom as actual l ypl eade d gui l t yt o s el l i ng ort o excha ngi ng t he m a r i j u a n a . W i t houtevi dence t hatT hom as actual l yadmi t t ed that h e e n g a g e d in a re m u n e ra tiv e sa le, h is o p e n p lea to § 2 2 1 .4 0 d id n o te s t a b l i s h t h a th e wa s c o n v i c t e d o f a d ru g t r a f

f i c k i n g c r i me th a t q u a lif

ie d a s a n a g g ra v a te d f

e lo n y . For t he r e a s o n s s e tf

o r t h a b o v e , we c o n c l u d e t h a tt he rec o rds f o r th e D ec em b er 1 0 , 1 9 9 6 co n v ict ion an d the J an u ary 2, 1998 convi ct i on do not es t abl i s h t hat T hom as admi tt ed or as s ent ed t o engagi ng i n a r emuner at i ve s al e of m ar i j uana. I n t he a b s e n c e o f

j u d i c i a l r e c o r d s t o e s t a b l i s h s u c h a f i n d i n g , we concl ude tha tT hom as ’ s m i s demeanorconvi ct i ons under § 2 2 1

. 4 0 we r e n o td rug t r a ff i c k i n g c r i me s u n d e r8 U. S

. C. § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 3 )( B ).
I V.
I n s um , w e conc l ude thatw e have j ur i s di ct i on over T hom as ’ s pet i t i on forr evi ew of the B I A ’ s or i gi nal deci sion.B eca us e T hom as ’ s m i s demeanor convi ct i ons forvi ol at i ng N ew Y or k Penal L aw § 221. 40 do notcon sti tut e drug t r aff i cki ng cr i m es t hatqual i fyas aggr avat ed fe l oni es , w e w i l l gr ant T hom as ’ s pet i t i on forr evi ew and r emand forfur t her p ro c e e d in g s .