N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT FR ANK B R YAN DAW SON, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-72635 Age n c y No. A036-991-942 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 and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 18, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : KLEINFELD, W ARD L AW , a

nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Frank B ry an Da

w son, a native and c itiz e n of B e liz e , pe titions for re vie w of a de c ision of theB oa

rd of Im m i gration Appe a ls (B IA) dism issing his a ppe a l of a n Im m i gration Judge ’ s (IJ) orde r of re m ova l. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a). W e grant the pe tition. 

# FIL ED D EC 21 2015 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3.1. The B IA e rre d by de ny ing Da

w s on’ s re que st to bere lie ve d of his form e r c ounse l’ s c onc e s sion of re m ova bility . A non-c i tiz e n

is not bound by

his a ttorne y ’ s fa c t ua l a dm issions or c onc e ssion of re m ova bility whe re the a dm issions or c onc e ssion we re “ ‘ the re sult of unre a sona ble profe ssiona l judgm e nt,’

— i.e ., ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l.” Santiago-Rodrigue z v . Holde r , 657 F.3d 820, 832 (9th C i r. 2011) (c i tation omitte d) (quoting In re Ve lasque z , 19 I. & N. De c . 377, 383 (B .I.A. 1986)). Da wson’ s form e r c ounse l c onc e de d re m ova bility on the ba sis of a 2001 re m ova l orde r de spite knowing tha t, le ss tha n thre e m onths e arlie r, a fe d e ra l m a gistra

te judge ha d

found the 2001 re m o va l orde r “ not le ga lly va lid.” This c onc e ssion wa s not a ta c tic a l de c ision. Ne i the r the gove rnm e nt nor theB IA ha s ide ntifie d a

ny be n e fit this c onc e ssion might ha ve proc ure d for Da

wson; inde e d, Dawson’ s form e r c ounse l wa s not pre pa re d to se e k a

ny form of re lie f for his c lie nt. Se e Unite d State

s v . Lope z-C hav e z , 757 F.3d 1033, 1042 (9th C ir. 2014). M ore o ve r, a dm itting tha

t he wa s “ a

littlec o nfuse d” only

m om e nts a fte r c o n c e ding re m ova bility , Da wson’ s form e r c ounse l wa s unfa m ilia r with theba sic c o nte nts of Dawson’ s Notic e to Appe ar and una w are of the “ se rious c onse que nc e s” tha t atta c h to a c onc e ssion of re m ova bility . Santiago-Rodrigue z , 657 F.3d a

t 835. Da wson’ s form e r attorne y

thus “ fa ile d to pe rform

with suffic ie nt c om

pe te n c e .” Mohamme d v . Gonzale

s , 400 F.3d 785, 793 (9th C i r. 2005). -2-2. The de fic ie nt pe rform anc e of Da wson’ s form e r c ounse l wa s pre judic ia l.

“ In situa tions, suc h a s this, whe re an attorne y ’ s inc om pe te n c e pre ve nts a

n a lie n from pre se nting his c a se a ltoge the r, the proc e e dings a re subje c t to a

pre sum ption of pre j udic e , a nd we will find tha

t [the a lie n] ha s be e n de n ie d due proc e ss if he c an de m onstra

te pla u sible grounds for re lie f on his unde rly i ng c la im .” SantiagoRodrigue z , 657 F.3d a

t 835 (c ita tion a n d inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d). Dawson ha d “pla

usible grounds for re lie f” be c a u se , a s a m a gistra te judge ha d re c e ntly de t e rm ine d, the 2001 re m ova l orde r upon whic h the gove rnm e nt ba se d its c ha rge s wa s, in fa c t, unla

wful. Da w son’ s ple a d ing-sta ge a dm issions during his 2001 re m ova l proc e e d i ngs did not e sta blish his re m ova

bility . Se e Pagay on v . Holde r , 675 F.3d 1182, 1189 (9th C ir. 2011) (pe r c uriam ); Pe re z -Me jia v . Holde r , 663 F.3d 403, 414 (9th C ir. 2011). First, Da wson did not c le arly

a dm i t tha t he wa s c onvic te d of posse ssing c oc a i ne ; rathe r, he a dm i tte d only tha t “ [i] t’ s c la im e d” tha

t he wa s c onvic te d of posse s sing “ a c ontrolle d substa

n c e involving c o c a ine .” Se c ond, Da

wson e xpre s sly

de nie d tha

t he wa s re m ova

b le unde r the gove rnm e nt’ s c ontrolle d substa

nc e s c ha rge . Third, theIJ did not “ a c c e pt[] ” Da w son’ s ple a dings a s “ suffic ie nt to e sta

blish re m ova

bility ” and inste a d

e nte re d the “ e vide ntia

ry sta ge ” of the re m ova l proc e e dings. Pagay on , 675 F.3d a t 1189. Spe c i fic a lly , in his Nove m be r 6, 2001 ora l de c ision, theIJ “pla c e d re lia nc e ” upon c e rta in “ c onvic tion -3-doc um e nts” and de te rm ine d tha t Da wson wa s re m ova

ble “ on the ba sis of this e vide nc e .” Thus, theIJ c ould not, a nd did not, find tha

t Da wson’ s ple a ding-sta ge a dm issions were suffic ie nt to e sta blish his re m ova

bility in 2001. 3. The IJ wa s the re fore re quire d to de te rm ine whe the r Da wson’ s c onvic tion unde r C a lifornia

He a lth & Sa fe ty

C ode § 11377(a) c o nstitute d a re m ova ble offe nse . Se e Pe r e

z-Me jia , 663 F.3d a

t 414. To make this de te rm inat ion, theIJ wa s re quire d to a

pply t he m odifie d c ate goric a l a pproa c h. C

oronado v . Holde r , 759 F.3d 977, 984–85 (9th C ir. 2014), c e rt. de nie d , 135 S. C t. 1492 (2015); se e also Tay lor v . Unite d State

s , 495 U.S. 575, 600–02 (1990). Unde r the m odifie d c ate goric a l a

pproa c h , Da

wson’ s § 11377(a) c onvic tion wa s not a re m ova ble offe nse be c a

use the judic i a lly

notic e a ble c o nvic tion doc um e nts did not e sta b lish that Da wson posse sse d a

ny substa n c e prohibite d by

Se c tion 102 of the C ontrolle d Substa nc e s Ac t . 8 U.S.C . § 1227(a)(2)(B )(i); se e Ruiz-Vidal v. Gonzale s , 473 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th C ir. 2007), abrogate d on othe r grounds by K w ong v . Holde r , 671 F.3d 872 (9th C ir. 2011); U nite d State

s v . Vidal , 504 F.3d 1072, 1087 (9th C ir. 2007) (e n ba

nc ). The IJ fa ile d to c onduc t this a na ly sis a nd inste a d re nde re d a re m ova l orde r that wa s, a s a m a gistra te judge lat e r de te rm ine d, “ not le ga lly va lid.” The re fore , Da

wson ha s e sta

blishe d tha

t the de fic i e nt pe rform anc e of his form e r c ounse l de prive d him

of a pe rsua sive argum e nt a ga inst thegove rnm e nt’ s c ha rge of -4-re m ova

bility an d “ may have a ffe c te d the outc om e of the proc e e dings.” Mohamme d, 400 F.3d a

t 794 (e m pha sis in origina

l). W e c onc lude tha

t Da wson ha s de m onstra

te d the e xiste nc e of c irc um sta nc e s that justify re lie ving him

of his form e r attorne y ’ s c onc e ssion of re m ova b ility . W e gran t the pe tition for re vie wand re m an d to thea ge nc y with instruc tions to gra nt Dawson’ s m otion to a

m e nd his ple a dings a

nd withdra

w his form e r attorne y ’ s c onc e ssion of re m ova

bility . Pe tition forr e vie w G RANT E D.

-5-Dawson v. Ly nc h, 12-72635 KLEINFELD, Se n ior C i rc uit Judge , disse nting: I re spe c tfully

disse nt. Da

wson c annot de m onstra

te pre judic e be c a

use his 2001 ple a dings we re suffic ie n t to e sta blish his re m ova

bility . Ac c ordingly , the B IA did not e rr in not pe rm itting Da wson to a m e nd his ple a d ings a

nd withdra

w his form e r attorne y ’ s c onc e ssion of re m ova bility . The 2001 re m ova l orde r wa s va lid unde r our c urre nt c a s e la w. Da wson a dm itte d during the2001 im

m igration he arings tha

t both of his sta

te c onvic tions involve d c oc a ine , a

nd tha t he wa s re m o va

ble and de porta

ble a s a n a ggravate d fe lon. B a se d on this a dm ission, the IJ found tha

t he wa s “ re m ova

ble and de porta ble unde r both Se c tion 237(a)(2)(B )(I) a nd 237(a )(2)(A)(iii) of the Im m i gration a

n d Nationa lity

Ac t.” Whe n the IJ ga

ve Da wson theopportunity

to re ple a d, he de nie d be ing “ re m ova ble and de p o rta

ble ,” but not be c a

use the c ha

rge did not involve

c oc a ine . Inste a d, Da

wson thought he

should begrante d a

wa ive r be c a use “ I just got a

rre s te d this y e ar in 2001 on this c a se from 1993 a n d I ple a de d guilty this y e ar.” Afte r this re p le a ding, theIJ e xp lic itly found tha

t Da w son

“ a d m itte d . . . he wa s c onvic te d on M ay 11, 2001 . . . for posse ssion of c oc a ine ,”



# FIL ED D EC 21 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

1be fore m o ving on to a n e vide ntia

ry he aring c onc e rning Da

wson’ s “ c itiz e n ship a

nd re lie f from

re m ova l.” Da

wson’ s a dm issions in 2001 m e ant tha t “ no furthe r e vide nc e c o nc e rning theissue s of fa c t a dm itte d or la w c onc e de d

[wa s] ne c e ssa

ry ” to e s ta b lish his re m ova

bility . 1 The se a dm issions also m a de it unne c e ssa ry for the IJ to e nga ge in a m odifie d c ate goric a l a na l y s is in 2001. 2

B e c a use of the pre c e d ing fa c ts, Da w s on c annot e sta

blish tha t he wa s le ga lly pre j udic e d by

his pre vious a

ttorne y ’ s a dm ission. 3

1 Pe re z -M e

jia v. Holde r, 663 F.3d 403, 414 (9th C ir. 2011) (e m pha s is a dde d).

2 Id. at 415. 3 San tia go-R odrigue z v. Holde r, 657 F.3d 820, 834-35 (9th C ir. 2011). 2