Thi s di s po s i t i on i s no t app r op r i a t e f or pu bl i c a t i on a nd i s no t pr e c e de nt e xc eptas * pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. T he H on orabl e E dw ar d R
. K orm an, S eni or D i stri ctJudg e f or the U . S
. D i stri ct ** C our tf orE a s t e rn N e w Y or k, B r ookl y n, s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. 1 NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON * UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T
C H U N G WE I H A M, P et i t i on er , v. E R IC H . H O L D E R , Jr . , A tt orney G ener al R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 72449 A ge nc y N o. A 043- 125- 309
ME MOR AN DU M

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M a y 6, 2011 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: N O O N A N and P A E Z , C i rc ui tJudg es , and K O R M A N , S eni or D i stri ctJudg e. **
C hung W e i H a m , a na t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of T a i w a n, pe t i t i ons fo r rev i ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) deci si o n d ism i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’s o r d e r d e n y in g h im a w a iv e ro f in a d m is s ib ility b a s e d o n h is



# FI LED JU L 26 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

a g g r a v a te d f

e lo n y c o n v ic tio n . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n p u r s u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e
r e v ie w d e n o v o “[ w ]h e th e ra n o f f e n s e i s a n a g g r a v a te d f e lo n y u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 11 01 (a ) .
. . . ” M

art i nez- P er ezv. G on zal es , 41 7 F . 3d 10 22 , 10 25 (9th C i r. 20 05 ). H a m c ha l l e nge s the B I A ’ s f i ndi ng tha thi s c onvi c t i on f orknow i ngl y pos s e s s i ng for s al e a rt i cl es bear i ng a c ou nt er fe i tm ark, i n v i ol at i on of C al
. P enal C od e § 3 5 0 ( d ) ( 3 ) , c o n s titu te s a n a g g r a v a te d f e lo n y . 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( R ) ; se e 8 U . S. C. § 1 18 2(h). H am cl ai m s thatthe defi ni t i on of the t erm “ spuri ou s m ark” i n C al
. P enal C ode § 350 r e gul a t e s a c t i vi t i e s o u t si d e the c or e c ount e r f e i t i ng of f e ns e . W hi l e the f e l ony c om pl a i nta l l e ge s tha tH a m c om m i tt e d hi s c r i m e s be f or e the “ s pur i ous m a r k” defi ni t i on beca m e e ff

ec t i ve, H am m ai nt ai ns thatthe ca t egori ca l approach of T ay l or
v. U ni t ed Stat es , 49 5 U . S
. 57 5 ( 19 90 ), prec l ud es us fr om “ concl ud [i ng ] t h at [he]
c o m m i tt ed th e o ffen se . . . p ri o r t o th e . . . l eg i sl at i v e am en d m en t []
. . . a n d [ th a t w e there fore ] ca nn ot as sum e that[the] st at e c ou rtappl i ed .
. . [the un am ended] st atut ory sc hem e. ” P et ’ r R epl y B r. at5-6. W e di sa gree . T h e c a te g o r ic a l ap p r o a c h “is d r iv e n . . . b y a p o lic y to ‘a v o id a d
- h o c m in itri al s, ” U n ite d S ta te s v . P ic c o lo , 44 1 F .3 d 10 84 , 10 87 (9th C i r. 20 06 ), on w hether a d efen d an t ’ s cond uct

“ ‘ w a s l e s s orm or e c ul pabl e tha n w ha thi s a c tua l c onvi c t i on re qu i re d. ’ ” G arci a v. H older , 638 F
. 3d 511, 5 1 7 (6 th C i r . 2011) ( quot i ng M art i nez
v. Mukasey , 551 F
. 3d 113, 121 ( 2d C i r . 2008) )
. H e r e , w e do notl ook be y ond the3

ju d g m e n t o f

c o n v ic tio n to d e te r m i n e w h e th e rH a m ’s c o n d u c t in d e p e n d e n tly
c ons t i tut e s a n a ggr a va t e d f e l ony . I ns t e a d, w e m e r e l y r e f erence the c ha r gi ng doc um en t s an d m i nut e e ntr i e s t o de t e r m i ne w hi c h v e rs i on of C a l
. P e na l C ode § 350 g o v er n ed H am ’s co n v icti o n . B ec au se th is ex am in atio n d o es n o t f o c u s o n H am ’s
co n d u ct , th e cat eg o ri cal ap p ro ach d o es n o tp recl u d e o u r i n q u i ry. A s c ha r ge d i n the f

e l ony c om pl a i nt , the a c t i vi t i e s unde r l y i ng H a m ’ s c onvi c t i on o c c u rr e d b e tw e e n J a n u a ry 1 , 1 9 9 6 a n d A p r il 2 0 , 1 9 9 8 . A m in u te e n try p r e c e d in g h is
s e nt e nc i n g a l s o i n d i c a t e s th a t th e o f f e n s e t o o k p l a c e “ o n o r ab o u t ” J a n u a ry 1 , 1996. A t the e a r l i e s t , the s t a tut ory de f i ni t i on of the t e r m “ s pur i ous m a r k” be c a m e e f f e c t i ve on S e pt e m be r13, 1998. 1998 C a l
. A L S 454. C on seq u en t l y, the de f i ni t i on of

“ s pur i ous m a r k” c oul d not ha ve gove rne d H a m ’ s c onvi c t i on, be c a u se t h e a c t i ons
u n d e r ly in g h is o f

f e n s e o c c u rr e d b e f

o r e th e e f f e c tiv e d a te o f th e s ta tu to ry a m e n d m e n t. See C al
. P en al C o d e § 3 (“ N o p art o f [th e C al i fo rn i a P en al C o d e] i s retro act i v e, u n l ess e x p r e s s ly . . . d e c la r e d .” ) ; s e e a lso S t ra u ss v . H or ton , 207 P
. 3d 48, 119 ( C a l
. 2009) (“ ‘ Iti s aw i del y r ec og ni ze d l egal pri nci pal [i n C al i forni a]
. . . thati n the abse nce of a clea r leg islati v e in ten t t o th e c o n trar y s tatu to ry en ac tm en ts ap p ly p ro sp ec ti v ely.’” ( quot i ng E va n g ela to s v. Su p eri o r C o u rt , 7 5 3 P .2 d 5 8 5 , 5 8 7 ( C a l. 1 9 8 8 ) ) ) ; In re E
. J. , 223 P
. 3d 31, 39 ( C a l
. 2010) ( “ [ S ] e c t i on 3 [ of the C a l i f

orni a P e na l C ode ] r e f

l e c t s the
c o m m o n u n d e r s t a n d in g th a t le g is la tiv e p r o v is io n s a r e p r e s u m e d to o p e r a te4

pr os pe c t i ve l y , a nd the y s houl d be s o i nt e rpr e t e d unl e s s e xpr e s s l a ngua ge orc l e a ra nd
u n av oi dabl e i m pl i ca t i on negat i ves the pres um pt i on . ”) (i nt ernal qu ot at i on s om i tt ed). H a m ’ s a r gum e nttha t“ ne w rul e s i n c r i m i na l c a s e s appl y ‘ t o . . . pr oc e e di ng[ s ] w hi c h,
a tthe t i m e of

the s upe r ve ni ng l e gi s l a t i on, ha [ ve ] noty e tr e a c h[ e d] f i na l di s pos i t i on .

. . , ” P e t ’ rR e pl y B r . a t6 ( quot i ng P e opl e v . N as al ga , 1 2 C a l
. 4 th 7 8 4 , 7 8 5 n .5 ( C a l. 1 9 9 6 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) , is u n a v a ilin g . T h e p r in c ip le o n ly appl i es t o st atut ory a m endm ent s w hen t hey “ m i t i gat e[ ] pu ni shm ent . ” Na s a l ga , 12 C a l
. 4th a t797. C ons e que nt l y , the de f i ni t i on of

the t e r m “ s pur i ous m a r k” di d not
appl y t o H a m ’ s c onvi c t i on. W e qui c kl y di s pos e of H a m ’ s r e m a i ni ng a r gum e nttha tC a l
. P e na l C ode § 350 doe s noti nc orpor a t e a n i nt e ntt o de f r a ud a s a n e s s e nt i a l e l e m e ntof the of f e ns e f orthe
r e a s ons a r t i c ul a t e d i n R odri gu ez -V al enci a v. H

older , N o. 09- 72060, - - - F . 3d -
- - - , 2011 W L 28 99 60 5, at*2 (9th C i r. Jul y 21, 20 11 ). T h e p et i t i o n fo r rev i ew i s D EN I ED .