United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1034

___________

Omar Garza Alvarado, *

*

Petitioner, *

*

v. * Petition for Review from the Board

* of Immigration Appeals.

Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General *

of the United States of America, * [PUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: April 9, 2007

Filed: April 17, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, BRIGHT, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Omar Garza Alvarado, a citizen of Mexico, was charged with being removable

after he pled guilty to and was convicted of possession of firearms and ammunition

by an unlawful user of a controlled substance, in violation of 18 U.S.C.§§ 922(g)(3),

924(a)(2), and possession of a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a),

18 U.S.C. § 2. The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Garza removable as an aggravated

felon, pretermitting his application for cancellation of removal. The Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. 
-2-

Garza asserts that although he pled guilty to possessing a firearm, he did not

commit an aggravated felony because his guns – a .22 caliber rifle and a 12 gauge

shotgun – were used for sporting purposes. The petition for review is denied. 

I.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) limits this court's jurisdiction to

review discretionary decisions of the BIA. Solano-Chicas v. Gonzales, 440 F.3d

1050, 1054 (8th Cir. 2006). However, this court retains the power to consider whether

the BIA "properly applied the law to the facts in determining an individual's eligibility

to be considered for the relief." Id. at 1055. This court reviews de novo the BIA's

legal determinations and grants deference to its interpretation of the INA. Nyirenda

v. INS, 279 F.3d 620, 623 (8th Cir. 2002). 

Any alien convicted of an aggravated felony is removable. See INA §

237(a)(2)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). An aggravated felony means "an

offense described in . . . section 922(g)(3) . . . of title 18, United States Code." See

INA § 101(a)(43)(E)(ii), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii). The IJ determined that Garza

was removable as an aggravated felon because he violated section 922(g)(3).

The attorney general may cancel removal of an alien who is deportable if the

alien (1) has been a lawfully admitted permanent resident for not less than five years,

(2) has resided in the United States continuously for 7 years after having been

admitted, and (3) has not been convicted of an aggravated felony. See INA §

240(A)(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a); Munoz-Yepez v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 347, 349 (8th

Cir. 2006). The IJ found, and BIA affirmed, that Garza was ineligible for cancellation

of removal because he was convicted of an aggravated felony.

Garza argues that his conviction is not an aggravated felony because he

possessed the firearms for sporting purposes. In the plea agreement in his criminal
-3-

case, the parties agree that the base offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines is

reduced because the defendant possessed the firearm "solely for lawful sporting

purposes." 

A firearm is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3) as: 

(A) any weapon (including a starting gun) which will or is designed to

or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an

explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of such a weapon; (C) any firearm

muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device.

Category D, any destructive device, excepts:

(C) . . . . 

any other device which the Attorney General finds is not likely to be

used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to

use solely for sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes.

18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(4).

Garza contends that the sporting exception modifies the definition of firearm

for the purposes of removal. Garza relies on Lemus-Rodriguez v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d

652, 655 (7th Cir. 2003), where the petitioner was "not barred from claiming his

criminal use of the rifle had a cultural purpose." Lemus-Rodriguez is inapposite

because the alien there was convicted of "attempted reckless discharge of a firearm,

in violation of Illinois law," which is not expressly defined as an aggravated felony

in the INA. See id. at 653. Lemus-Rodriguez thus does not address a conviction

defined as an aggravated felony, as relevant here, an "offense described in . . . section

922(g)(3)." See INA § 101(a)(43)(E)(ii), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii).

Here Garza pled guilty to and was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3).

The guilty-plea transcript in the criminal case recites:
1

 All the documents and the other oral references in the criminal case are to

section 922(g)(3).

-4-

THE COURT: All right. Please stand. As to Count One,

possession of firearms and ammunition by an unlawful user

of a controlled substance, in which the United States

Attorney has charged that on or about October 1, 2004 in

the District of North Dakota and elsewhere, Omar Alvarado

Garza, then being an unlawful user of a controlled

substance, possessed in and affecting commerce firearms

and ammunition, specifically, the firearms described in the

Information, all in violation of Title 18, United States Code,

Sections 922(g)(2)[1] and 924(a)(2), to that charge how do

you plead? Guilty or not guilty?

THE DEFENDANT: Guilty.

A.R. 144-45. The judgment says:

Accordingly, the defendant is adjudged guilty of such

count, which involve the following offenses:

Title & Section Nature of Offense Date Offense Concluded 

18 U.S.C. § Possession of Firearms 10-01-04

922(g)(3) and and Ammunition by an 

924(a)(2) Unlawful User of a

 Controlled Substance

Garza was convicted of violating section 922(g)(3). The plain text of the INA

says, "The term 'aggravated felony' means . . . an offense described in . . . section

922(g)(3)." See INA § 101(a)(43)(E)(ii), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii). "Cancellation

of removal under § 240A is only available to an alien who 'has not been convicted of

any aggravated felony.'" Munoz-Yepez, 465 F.3d at 349 (emphasis in original). See

8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3). As Garza was convicted of violating section 922(g)(3), for

purposes of removal and cancellation of removal, he is an aggravated felon. The BIA
-5-

did not err in affirming the IJ's decision finding him removable and statutorily

ineligible for cancellation of removal.

II.

The petition for review is denied.

______________________________