## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### D e c e m b e r 27, 2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT J UAN DE DI OS GO NZA LEZ- GO NZA LEZ,

Pet i t i oner- A ppel l ee, v. SC O T T W E B E R , U . S. B ur eau of I m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cement ( B I C E ) , D enver , C ol or ado,

R e sp o n d e n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 04- 1181

AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF COLORA DO (D . C . N o . 0 3 -R B -67 8 (M J W )) J onathan F. C ohn, D eputyA s s i s t antA t t orneyG ener al ( Pet erD . K ei s l er , A s s i s t ant A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, C iv il D iv isio n , D a v id M . M c C o n n e ll, D e p u tyD ire c to r, an d D im p le G up t a , Couns e l t o the A s s i s t a ntA t t orne yG e ne r a l , Ci vi l D i vi s i on on the br i e fs ) , U . S. D e p a rtm e n t o f

Ju stic e , W a sh in g to n , D .C ., f o r R e sp o n d e n t - A p p e llan t. J i m Sal vat or , L afa y ett e, C ol or ado, forPet i t i oner- A ppel l ee. B efor e B RI S CO E , HOLL OW AY and M UR P HY , C i rcui tJudg es. HOLL OW AY , C i r cui tJ udge.T h e B IC E is th e s u c c e s s o r t o th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tu ra liz a tio n S e rv ic e (I N S ). 1 B eca us e much of t he hi s t oryof thi s cas e occ urr ed bef or e the cr eat i on of the B I C E and the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i ty , forconveni ence w e w i l l r efe ri n thi s opi ni on t o the I N S w h e n d i s c u s s i n g th a th i s t o ry. -2- T h e issu e p rese n ted in this m att er w as v eryrec en tl yd ec ided b ythe S u p rem e C o u rt i n Lopezv. G onz al es , 2006 W L 3487031 ( S. C t . D ec. 5, 2006) , m aki ng i tunnece s s aryfor us t o del ve dee pl yi nt o the i s s ue and the conf us i on i thad pr evi ous l ycr eat ed. B eca us e of change s i n j ur i s di ct i on and pr ocedur e thathave a l s o i nt ervened, the form of our di s pos i t i on i s neverthel es s unfami l i ar . A bs entthos e s t atut orydevel opm ent s , our di s pos i t i on w oul d have be en t o aff i r m the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s gr antof M r . G onzal ez’ pet i t i on forhabea s corpus r el i ef. U nderthe curr entl aw , w e i ns t ead c onvertthi s pr ocee di ng t o a pet i t i on forr evi ew of the under l y i ng admi ni s tr at i ve or derand gr antthatpet i t i on, hol di ng th a t th e a g e n c ym u st g ra n t M r. G o n z a lez th e re lief o rd e re d b yth e d istric t co u rt. I T he B ur eau of

I m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cementof the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i ty( B I C E ) appea l ed fr om the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s gr antof a pe t i t i on for 1 habea s corpus r el i ef br oughtbyM r . G onzal ez. T he di s tr i ctcourthad j ur i s di ct i on under the governi ng l aw atthe t i m e bec aus e G onzal ez i s an al i en underor derof r emoval w ho r ai s ed cons t i tut i onal chal l enges thatcoul d notbe cons i der ed i n di r ectr evi ew of the a g e n c y ’ s o r d e ro f

r e mo v a l . Wh i l e th i s a p p e a l wa s p e n d i n g , Co n g r e s s p a s s e d th e RE AL I D A ctof 2005, Pub. L . N o. 109- 13, D i v. B , 119 St at . 302 ( codi fi ed i n var i ous s ect i ons of T i t l e 8, U . S. C . ( M ay11, 2005) ) , underw hi ch cha l l enges s uch as thi s ar e pr oper l ybr ought-3-

as pet i t i ons forr evi ew i n the courtof appe al s r atherthan as habea s corpus pet i t i ons under 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . See H em v. Maur er , 4 5 8 F .3 d 1 1 8 5 , 1 1 8 8 n .3 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); V

a rg a s v . D e

p a rtm e n t o

f H o m e la n d S e c u rity , 4 5 1 F . 3 d 1 1 0 5 , 1 1 0 7 (10 th C ir . 2006) . M or eover , thi s s i gni fi cantj ur i s di ct i onal change i s notl i m i t ed t o pet i t i ons br ought a f te r i ts e f f e c tiv e d a te ; th e re f

o re w e c o n v e rt th is p e n d in g a p p e a l in to a p e titio n f o r r e v ie w . See Sc hm i t tv. M

aur er , 4 5 1 F .3 d 1 0 9 2 , 1 0 9 3 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). W e c o n c lu d e th a t th is r eas oni ng appl i es equal l yt o thi s m att er , i n w hi ch i ti s the governm entthati ni t i at ed the appea l fr om the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or der , as t o the conve r s i on of an a ppeal fr om an al i en, as i n Sc h m itt . T he conve r s i on of thi s pendi ng m att erfr om an appe al of a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fi nal order t o a p et i t i on for r eview do es not chang e ou r s t and ard of revi ew , w hich i s de novo . See Bonhom etr e v. G onz al es , 4 1 4 F .3 d 4 4 2 , 4 4 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ), cer t . deni ed, 1 2 6 S . Ct 1 3 6 2 (20 0 6 ). II Pet i t i onerG onzal ez e nt er ed the countryi l l egal l yi n 1978. I n 1986 he w as gr ant ed t empora ryl aw ful r es i dence thr ough a s peci al amnestypr ogr am for undoc um ent ed a g ric u ltu ra l w o rk e rs. In 1 9 9 0 h e w a s g ra n ted law f u l p e rm a n e n t re sid e n c e . H e a n d h is w i fe ha ve fourchi l dr en w ho ar e U ni t ed St at es ci t i zens . I n 1996 he w as arr es t ed and char ged i n s t at e courtw i th pos s es s i on of coc ai ne w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e. A s a r es ul tof a pl ea ba r gai n r eac hed i n 1997, G onzal ez w as s ent ence d t o pr obat i on onl y . Shor t l yaft er s ent enci ng i n thatcas e, the I N S com m ence d r emoval pr ocee di ngs . Pet i t i onerw as or der ed-4-

re m o v e d to M e x ico in 1 9 9 8 , an d h e a p p e a led to th e B u re a u o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (B IA ) fro m that o rde r. T he I N S had char ged thatG onzal ez w as r emovabl e as an al i en convi ct ed of a cr i m e “r el at i ng t o a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance ” under8 U . S. C . § 1227( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) , and as an al i en convi ct ed of a n “aggr avat ed fe l ony ” ( a t erm w hi ch w i l l be di s cus s ed i nfr a ) un d er 8 U . S. C . § 1227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) . T her e i s an i m por t antdi ffe r ence i n the tw o bas es for re m o v a l, be c a u se a n a lien re m o v a b le o n lyf o r a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e v io latio n m a ya p p ly forr el i ef i n the form of ca ncel l at i on of the r emoval or der , butone convi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l onycannot . 8 U . S. C . § 1229b( a) . T he or i gi nal or derbyan A dm i ni s tr at i ve L aw Ju d g e h ad h eld P eti ti o n er rem o v ab le on the g rou n d that h is prior stat e c o u rt c o n v i c t i o n h a d b e e n f

o ra n a g g r a v a t e d f

e l o n y. W h ile h is a d m in istra tiv e a p p e a l w a s p e n d in g , G o n z a lez w e n t b a c k to th e sta te courtand moved t o w i thdr aw hi s gui l typl ea. H e al l eged thatthe pl ea ha d notbeen know i ngl yent er ed bec aus e hi s l aw y erhad fa i l ed t o advi s e hi m of the cons equenc es of the convi ct i on on hi s i m m i gr at i on s t atus and ci t ed C ol or ado author i tythatthi s i s partof couns el ’ s duty . H e al s o al l eged thatthe s t at e tr i al courthad fa i l ed i n i t s r es pons i bi l i t i es beca us e the j udge had a l s o fai l ed t o advi s e hi m of the col l at er al cons equenc es of hi s pl ea. T he mot i on t o w i thdr aw the gui l typl ea w as r es ol ved bya new pl ea a gr eement pr ovi di ng thatthe pr evi ous count s w oul d be di s m i s s ed, and thatG onzal ez w oul d pl ead g u iltyto a n e w lyf

iled c h a rg e o f

sim p le p o ss e ss io n . G o n z a lez b e liev e d (n o t en tirely w i thoutr eas on) thats i m pl e pos s es s i on w as notan “a ggr avat ed fe l ony ” forpurpos es of theT hat ruli ng cam e i n a d eci si on app l y i ng the U nit ed S t at es Sen t encing G uidel i nes, 2 noti n an i m m i gr at i on m att er . T he di ver gence thatonce e xi s t ed i n s om e ci r cui t s on the i s s ue, dependi ng on w hetherthe i s s ue ar os e i n an i m m i gr at i on cont extorunderthe G u id e lin e s , n o w s e e m s u n te n a b le . S e e L e o c a l v. A sh c ro ft , 5 4 3 U . S . 1 , 1 1 n . 8 (20 0 4 ). -5- im m ig ra tio n la w s a n d s o h e w o u ld b e c o m e e lig ib le to a p p ly f o r c a n c e lla tio n o f

re m o v a l. B utthe i s s ue w as , unt i l i t s r ece ntr es ol ut i on bythe Supr eme C our ti n Lopezv. G onz al es , th e c a u s e o f

mu c h c o n f

u s i o n i n th e c o u r t s a n d th e BI A. T h e n e w sta te c o u rt c o n v ictio n w a s e n ter e d in M a y1 9 9 9 . G o n z a lez th e n f iled in the pendi ng B I A pr ocee di ng a mot i on t o r emand t o the A L J beca us e he w as no l onger deport abl e foran aggr avat ed fe l ony . H ow ever , the B I A di d notacton thi s m ot i on for three y ears . G o n z a lez ’ su c c e ss f

u l ef f o rt in sta te c o u rt to w ith d ra w h is p lea to p o ss e ss io n w ith i nt entt o di s tr i but e and t o have hi s convi ct i on r educe d t o one fors i m pl e pos s es s i on w as m o tiv a ted b yth e f

a c t th a t th e B IA h a d , at le a st s in c e 1 9 9 5 , tak e n th e p o sitio n th a t sim p le p o sses sion crim es w ere n o t agg rav ated fe lon ies fo r pu rpo ses o f a d eterm ination u n d er 8 U .S .C § 1 2 2 9 b (a ) o f

e lig ib ility to a p p ly f

o r c a n c e lla tio n o f

re m o v a l. S e e I

n r e L . G. , 2 1 I. & N . D e c . 8 9 (B IA 1 9 9 5 ). I n 1 9 9 9 , th e B IA re -a f f ir m e d th a t v ie w , see In re K-V -D , 2 2 I. & N . D ec . 1 1 6 3 (B IA 1 9 9 9 ) ( en banc ) , i n s pi t e of the fa ctthats ever al ci r cui t s , i ncl udi ng thi s one, had rul ed thata drug pos s es s i on cr i m e w hi ch i s a fe l onyunders t at e l aw , even w h e n i tw o u l d h a v e b e e n o n l y a m i s d e m e a n o ru n d e rf e d e r a l l a w , i s a n a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n y, see U nited S tates v. C ab rera- So sa , 8 1 F . 3 d 9 9 8 , 1 0 0 0 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). 2 T h en , in 2 0 0 2 , w ith p eti ti o n er’s ap p ea l and m o ti o n to rem an d sti ll p en d ing b ef o re-6-

the B I A , thatbodyi n anothercas e r ever s ed i t s pr ece dentand dec i ded thats t at e fe l ony c o n v ictio n s f

o r sim p le p o ss e ss io n w e re to b e tre a ted a s a g g ra v a ted f e lo n ies (e x c e p t in th o s e c ir c u its th a t h a d h e ld to th e c o n tr a ry). In re Y a n ez-G a rc ia , 23 I . & N . D ec. 390 (B IA 2 0 0 2 ). S o o n a f

ter th a t, an d in a p p a re n t co n f lict w ith th a t d e c isio n , the B IA f in a lly gr ant ed pet i t i oner ’ s m ot i on t o r emand. Pet i t i oner ’ s vi ct oryw as s hor tl i ved, how ever , as the age ncym oved forr econs i der at i on, and i n 2003 the B I A w i thdr ew i t s pr i oror derand d ism iss e d p e tit io n e r’s a p p e a l. G onzal ez then fi l ed hi s habea s pet i t i on i n the di s tr i ctcourt . T he di s tr i ctj udge gr ant ed the pet i t i on, fi ndi ng thatthe B I A had vi ol at ed pet i t i oner ’ s due pr oces s r i ght s by r etr oact i vel yappl y i ng t o hi s convi ct i on i t s 2002 deci s i on thatthe s i m pl e pos s es s i on convi ct i on w as an aggr avat ed fe l ony . T he j udge’ s opi ni on r el i ed mai nl yon IN S v . S t. C yr , 533 U . S. 289 ( 2001) . T he r el i ef or der ed w as thatG onzal ez be perm i t t ed t o appl yfor c a n c e lla tio n o f

re m o v a l a n d th a t h is c o n v ic tio n n o t b e tr e a te d a s a n a g g ra v a te d f e lo n y . T he governm entm oved forr econs i der at i on, w hi ch w as deni ed. T he governm entthen b r o u g h tth i s a p p e a l wh i c h , a s n o t e d , we h a v e c o n v e r t e d t o a p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. III T he s er i es of cr os s - defi ni t i ons w hi ch had t o be tr aver s ed i n r es ol vi ng the ques t i on o f sta tu to ryc o n stru c tio n u n d e rly in g th is m a tter le d m a n yc o u rts, in c lu d in g th is c o u rt, t o c o n c l u d e th a ta s t a t e c o u r tc o n v i c t i o n f o ra d ru g o f

f e n s e w h i c h w o u l d h a v e b e e n o n l y a m i s demeanorunderfede r al cr i m i nal l aw coul d al s o, i n a di ffe r entcont ext , cons t i tut e an a g g r a v a t e d f

e l o n y u n d e rf

e d e r a l l a w . T h i s c e rt a i n l y s e e m e d o n i t s f a c e t o b e a n a n o m a l y;-7-

aft eral l , i n or di naryl egal us age the t erm s “mi s demeanor , ” “f el ony , ” and “ aggr avat ed fel on y ” descri be a p rogres si on of increas i ng severi tyof o ffen ses. N evertheles s, C on gress coul d, no doubt , defi ne t erm s i n di ffe r entcont ext s i n w ay s thatl ead t o an i ncongrui tyl i ke thi s . T he ques t i on w as notw hetherC ongr es s coul d do s o, butw hetheri thad i n fac tdone s o . T h a t q u e s tio n n o w h a s a d e f in itiv e a n s w e r t h a t c o n tr o ls th is a p p e a l. U nderthe I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ct , as amended, the t erm “aggr avat ed f e lo n y ” in c lu d e s , in tera lia , “a d ru g tra f f ick in g c rim e (a s d e f

in e d in se c tio n 9 2 4 (c ) o f T itl e 1 8 ).” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 3 )( B ). U n d e r t h e c ro s s -r e f e re n c e d p ro v is io n , 1 8 U .S .C . § 924( c) ( 2) , a “drug tr aff

i cki ng cr i m e” i s defi ned as “anyfel onypuni s habl e underthe C ontr ol l ed Subs t ance s A ct. . . . ” Thi s phr as e, “puni s habl e underthe C ontr ol l ed S u b s t a n c e s A c t , ” h a d b e e n g i v e n tw o c o m p e t i n g i n t e rp r e t a t i o n s i n th e f e d e r a l c o u r t s . We n e e d n o ttr a c e th e o u t l i n e s o f th i s d e b a t e h e r e . S e v e r a l c o u r t s h a v e d o n e s o p r e v i o u s l y, and the mostcompl et e di s cus s i on i s pr obabl ythati n U ni t ed Stat es v. P alaci os - Suar ez , 4 1 8 F . 3 d 6 9 2 , 6 9 5 -97 (6th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T he deba t e has now been r es ol ved. “[A ] s t at e off ens e cons t i tut es a ‘ fel ony p u n ish a b le u n d e r th e C o n tro lled S u b sta n c e s A c t’ o n lyif it p ro sc rib e s c o n d u c t p u n ish a b le as a fe l onyunderthatfede r al l aw . ” Lopezv. G onz al es , 2006 W L 3487031 ( S. C t . , D ec. 5, 2006) . T he Lopezdeci s i on contr ol s her e. W e have hel d thatcas es i nt erpr et i ng s t atut es ar e “f ul l yr etr oact i ve bec aus e theydo notchange the l aw , butr atherexpl ai n w hatthe l aw has al w ay s m eant . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. R i ver a- N evar ez , 4 1 8 F . 3 d 1 1 0 4 , 1 1 0 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). M o re g e n e ra lly , the S u p re m e C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t:-8-

W hen thi s C our tappl i es a rul e of f eder al l aw t o the part i es befor e i t , that ru le is th e c o n tro lli n g in terp re tatio n o f f e d e ra l law a n d m u st b e g iv e n f u ll retroact i ve ef

fecti n all cases s t i l l op en o n d i rectrevi ew and as t o all even t s, r egar dl es s of w hethers uch eve nt s pr edat e orpos t dat e ourannounce m entof the rul e. H ar perv. V i r gi ni a D ept . of

Taxat i on , 5 0 9 U .S . 8 6 , 9 7 (1 9 9 3 ). See al s o O l cot tv. D elaw ar e Fl ood C o. , 7 6 F . 3 d 1 5 3 8 , 1 5 4 7 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). W e b e liev e th a t H

ar perand O lco tt

m a k e it cle a r b e y o n d d o u b t th a t w e m u st a p p ly the C ou rt ’s Lopezdeci s i on i n thi s m att er . W e ar e mi ndful thatourhol di ng contr adi ct s our hol di ngs i n U

nited S tates v. C ab rera- So sa , 81 F. 3d 998, 1000 ( 10th C i r . 1996) , and se v e ra l ca se s th a t h a d f

o llo w e d it. W e c o n c lu d e th a t Lopezhas cl ear l yoverrul ed thatl i ne of ca s es , notw i ths t andi ng thatthe i s s ue i n thos e ca s es ar os e underthe s ent enci ng g u id e lin e s. “ [ W ]e m u st in terp re t th e sta tu te c o n sis ten tly , w h e th e r w e e n c o u n ter its appl i cat i on i n a cr i m i nal ornoncr i m i nal cont ext. . . . ” L e o c a l v. A sh c ro ft , 543 U . S. 1, 11 n. 8 ( 2004) . T he C our ti n Lopezm ade i tcl earthati t s hol di ng w as notl i m i t ed t o the i m m i gr at i on cont ext , w e conc l ude. I n addr es s i ng and r ej ect i ng an ar gum entm ade byt he governm enti n Lopez , the C our ts ai d thatthe r eadi ng of the s t atut e the governm entw as pr opos i ng w oul d m ake f eder al l aw i n “al i en r emoval , ” and “ the l aw of s ent enci ng for i l l egal entryi nt o the country , [under ] U SSG § 2L 1. 2, depende nton vary i ng s t at e cr i m i nal c la s s if ic a tio n s ” in c o n tr a v e n tio n o f C o n g re s s io n a l in te n t. Lopez , 2006 W L 3487031 at *6. IV F o r t h e re a s o n s g iv e n , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w m u s t b e g ra n te d .-9-

M r. G o n za lez m u st be p erm itted to ap p lyfo r ca n ce ll ati o n o f re m o v al, an d h is st ate c o u rt c o n v i c t i o n m u s tn o tb e tr e a t e d a s a n a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n y. I T I S S O OR DE RE D. A ppel l ant ’ s unoppos ed mot i on s uppl ementthe r ecor d i s gr ant ed.