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 Third C ir c uit 6-30-2010 

# B ule nt Gul v

. Atty Ge n U SA P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2675

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and 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 Third C irc uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " B ule nt G ul v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1091. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010/1091NOT 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

___________ N o. 09- 2675

___________ BU L E NT GUL Pet i t i oner v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES,

R es pondent

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 99 310 604) Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on orabl e E ug ene P ug l i ese

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 23, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , J O R D A N and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 30, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM B ul entG ul , a ci t i zen of T ur key , ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es on O ct ober29, 2000, as a n o n -i m m igran t i n tr an sit , w ith au tho ri za ti o n to rem ain u n ti l N o v em b er 8 , 2 0 0 0 . In D ece m ber2005, G ul m arr i ed a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen, w hos e Pet i t i on forA l i en R el at i veT h e G o v ern m en t i n it ial lyall eg ed that G u l w as re m o v ab le as a n il li citd rug tr af fick er, 1 s e e IN A § 2 1 2 (a )( 2 )( C )( i) , b u t la te r w ith d re w th a t c h a rg e . 2 ( For m I - 130) w as l at erappr oved bythe U . S. C us t om s and I m m i gr at i on Ser vi ce (“ U S C IS ” ). I n M a rc h 2 0 0 6 , G u l a p p lie d f o r a d ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s b a s e d o n h is m a rr ia g e . S ee Im m igrati o n an d N ati o n ali tyA ct (“IN A ”) § 2 4 5 (a) [8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 5 (a)]. T h e U S C IS d en ied G u l’ s ap p li ca ti o n , fin d ing that h e w as in ad m issi b le fo r pe rm an en t r esid en ce . In p a rticu lar , the U S C IS c o n c lu d e d th e re w a s re a so n to b e liev e th a t G u l h a d b e e n a n ill icit tr aff i ckeri n a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance beca us e he ha d been c har ged i n 2005 w i th var i ous d ru g o f f e n s e s in N e w J e rs e y . S e e IN A § 2 1 2 (a )( 2 )( C )( i) [ 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 (a )( 2 )( C )( i) ]. T he maj or i tyof the s t at e drug char ges w er e di s m i s s ed, but , i n February2006, G ul pl eade d gui l tyi n N ew J er s eySuper i orC our tt o the di s or der l yper s ons offe ns e of l oi t er i ng forthe purpos e of obt ai ni ng ordi s tr i but i ng a contr ol l ed dange r ous s ubs t ance . See N . J . St at . A nn. § 2 C :3 3 -2 .1 (b ). I n Ap r i l 2 0 0 7 , th e Go v e rn me n tc h a r g e d Gu l wi th r e mo v a b i l i tyu n d e rI NA § 237( a) ( 1) ( B ) [8 U . S. C . § 1227( a) ( 1) ( B ) ] , as an al i en w ho had over s t ay ed hi s author i zed a d mi s s i o n p e r i o d . T h e Go v e rn me n tl a t e rc h a r g e d Gu l wi th b e i n g r e mo v a b l e u n d e rI NA § 237( a) ( 1) ( A ) [8 U . S. C . § 1227( a) ( 1) ( A ) ] , as an al i en w ho, atthe t i m e of a dj us t m entof s t atus , w as i nadmi s s i bl e bec aus e he ha d been c onvi ct ed of a cr i m e “r el at i ng t o a co n tr o ll ed su b stan ce (as d ef ined in se cti o n 8 0 2 o f T it le 21 ). ” IN A § 2 1 2 (a)(2)(A )(i )(I I) 1 [8 U . S. C . § 1182( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i ) ( I I ) ] . G ul admi t t ed thathe had ove r s t ay ed hi s per i od of3

a d mi s s i o n , b u td e n i e d th a th e wa s r e mo v a b l e o ri n a d mi s s i b l e u n d e rI NA § 2 1 2 (a )(2 )(A )(i)(II ). T h e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e (“ IJ” ) re jec ted G u l’s a rg u m e n ts, d e n ied h is r enew ed appl i cat i on foradj us t m entof s t atus , and or der ed hi m r emoved t o T ur key . G ul ap p ea led to the B o ard o f Im m igrati o n A p p ea ls ( “B IA ”). T he B I A concl uded thatI N A § 212( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i ) ( I I ) coul d notpr ovi de a ba s i s for G u l’s re m o v a b lity , b u t th a t itd id re n d e r h im in a d m iss ib le a n d , co n se q u e n tly , ine lig ib le to a d ju st h is s tatu s. T h a t p ro v isio n sta tes in re lev a n t p a rt: [ A ]n ya lien c o n v icte d o f , o r w h o a d m its h a v in g c o m m itt e d , o r w h o a d m its co m m itti n g ac ts w h ich c o n sti tute the e ssen ti al elem en ts of . . . a v iolati o n o f (o r a con spi racyor at t em pt t o v i olat e) anyl aw or r egu l at i on of a S t at e, the U nit ed S t at es, ora for ei gn countryr el at i ng t o a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance ( as defi ned i n s ect i on 802 of T i t l e 21) , i s i nadmi s s i bl e. I N A § 212( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i ) ( I I ) . A n al i en w ho s at i s fi es thes e cr i t er i a “a tthe t i m e of e ntryor a d ju stm e n t o f

sta tu s” is a lso re m o v a b le. S e e IN A § 2 3 7 (a )(1 )(A ). W ith re sp e c t to re m o v a b ili ty , the B IA h e ld th a t itw a s “ u n a b le to d e ter m in e to a n yd e g re e o f c e rta in ty w hetherthe contr ol l ed s ubs t ance s cont ai ned i n N ew J er s ey ’ s D anger ous Subst ance s C ontr ol L aw ar e the s ame subs t ance s cont ai ned i n s ect i on 102 of the C ontr ol l ed Subst ance s A ct . ” I n the cont extof i nadmi s s i bi l i ty , how ever , the B oar d hel d that“[e ] ven i f the N ew J er s eySt atut es covers om e s ubs t ance s thatar e notcont ai ned i n s ect i on 102 of the C ontr ol l ed Subs t ance s A ct , [G ul ] . . . has fai l ed t o m eethi s bur den of pr ovi ng thatthe admi t t edl y‘ i l l egal s ubs t ance ’ forw hi ch he w as convi ct ed w as nota contr ol l ed s ubs t ance u n d e r 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 0 2 .” G u l f ile d a tim e ly p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w .4

W e h av e jurisdicti o n p u rsua n t t o IN A § 2 4 2 [8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 ]. W h ethe r a pet i t i oneri s el i gi bl e foradj us t m entof s t atus “i s a pur el yl egal ques t i on” w hi ch w e r evi ew d e n o v o . P in h o v . G o n z a le s , 4 3 2 F .3 d 1 9 3 , 2 0 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ); K a m a ra v . A tt’ yG e n ., 420 F. 3d 202, 211 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . W e ow e def er ence t o the B I A ’ s cons truct i on of the I N A beca us e i ti s a s t atut e thatthe age ncyi s char ged w i th admi ni s t er i ng. See A cos t a v. A s hcr oft , 341 F. 3d 218, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . N everthel es s , w e ow e no def er ence t o the B I A ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of s t at e cr i m i nal l aw s . See Sant os v. G onzal es , 436 F. 3d 323, 325 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T he st at e st atute unde r w hich G ul w as conv i ct ed p rovi des: A per s on, w hetheron footori n a mot orvehi cl e, comm i t s a di s or der l yper s ons offe ns e i f ( 1) he w ander s , r emai ns orpr ow l s i n a publ i c pl ace w i th the purpos e of unl aw ful l yobt ai ni ng ordi s tr i but i ng a contr ol l ed dange r ous s ubs t ance orcontr ol l ed subst ance a nalog; and (2) eng ages i n co nd uct that, un der the cir cum st ances, m ani fes t s a purpos e t o obt ai n ordi s tr i but e a c ontr ol l ed dange r ous s ubs t ance or contr ol l ed s ubs t ance anal og. N . J . St at . A nn. § 2C : 33- 2. 1( b) . T o det erm i ne w hethera convi ct i on underthi s l aw “r el at es to ” a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e d e f in e d in 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 0 2 , w e a p p ly a c a te g o ri c a l a p p ro a c h . S ee T ay l or v. U nit ed S t at es, 49 5 U . S . 57 5, 60 0-02 (19 90 ); see al so M i zrahi v. G on zal es, 492 F. 3d 156, 159 ( 2d C i r . 2007) ( not i ng thatw hetherthe “l aw orr egul at i on” vi ol at ed rel at es t o co ntr oll ed sub st ances u nd er § 212 (a) (2) (A )( i )( II ) “effect i velydem and s a c a t e g o r i c a l i d e n t i f

i c a t i o n o f

th e a p p l i c a b l e v i o l a t i o n s o f l a w. ” ) . Un d e rth i s a p p r o a c h , we m ayl ook onl yt o the s t atut orydefi ni t i on of the off ens e, and maynotcons i derthe part i cul arfac t s under l y i ng a convi ct i on. See Si ngh v. A s hcr oft , 383 F. 3d 144, 147- 48 ( 3d5

C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). “[ O ]u r in q u iryc o n c lu d e s w h e n w e d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e lea st c u lp a b le conducts uffi ci entt o s us t ai n convi ct i on underthe s t atut e ‘ fi t s ’ w i thi n the r equi r ement s ” of a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns e under§ 212( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i ) ( I I ) . J ean- L oui s v. A t t ’ yG en. , 582 F . 3 d 4 6 2 , 4 7 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). G ul ar gues thathi s convi ct i on under§ 2C : 33- 2. 1( b) cannotcat egor i cal l yqual i fyas a n o f f e n se re latin g to a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e b e c a u se it “re p re se n ts th e k in d o f in c h o a te offe ns e thathas no fede r al anal og i n fede r al contr ol l ed s ubs t ance s offe ns es , and i s not i ncl uded i n the l i s tof i nchoat e off ens es [( i . e. , att empt and cons pi r acy ) ] encompas s ed” w ith in § 2 1 2 (a)(2)(A )(i )(I I). (P et’r’ s B r. 2 . ) W e c o n clud e tha t th ese arg u m en ts are w ith o u t m e ri t. N othi ng i n § 212( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i ) ( I I ) r equi r es thatthe s t at e off ens e have a fe der al anal og t o r enderan al i en i nadmi s s i bl e. R ather , the off ens e nee d onl yi nvol ve a s t at e l aw “r el at i ng t o a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance , ” and the s ubs t ance m us tbe one de fi ned i n the C on trol l ed S ub st ances A ct(“C S A ”). F urtherm ore, “C on gress ’s use of the p hrase

‘ r el at i ng t o’ i n fede r al l egi s l at i on gener al l ys i gnal s i t s expans i ve i nt ent . ” M i zr ahi , 492 F. 3d at159 ( ci t i ng M or al es v. T W A , I nc. , 504 U . S. 374, 383 ( 1992) ) . H er e, “[t ] he oper at i ve s t atut oryphr as e, ‘ r el at i ng t o a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance , ’ m odi fi es ‘ l aw or r egul at i on. ’ ” M i el ew czyk v. H ol der , 575 F. 3d 992, 994- 95 ( 9th C i r . 2009) . T o “r el at e” m eans “‘ t o s how ores t abl i s h a l ogi cal orcaus al connec t i on betw een. ’ ” I d. at995 ( quot i ng W ebs t er ’ s N ew I nt ernat i onal D i ct i onary1916 ( 3d ed. 2002) ) . T hus , “i f a l aw6

d e f in in g a n e ss e n tial e lem e n t o f a c rim e re late s to a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e , the c rim e itse lf is a v io la tio n o f

la w th a t r e n d e rs a n a lie n in a d m is s ib le u n d e r” § 2 1 2 (a )( 2 )( A )( i) (I I) . M iz ra h i, 4 9 2 F .3 d a t 1 5 9 . A convi ct i on under§ 2C - 33- 2. 1( b) s peci fi cal l yi ncl udes a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance e lem e n t. A s n o ted a b o v e , itre q u ire s “ w a n d e r[ in g ], re m a in [ in g ] o r p ro w l[ in g ]” in a p u b lic pl ace w i th the purpos e of unl aw ful l yobt ai ni ng ordi s tr i but i ng a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance , as w el l as “enga g[i ng] i n conduct ” thatm ani fes t s a purpos e t o obt ai n ordi s tr i but e a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance . T hi s di s t i ngui s hes G ul ’ s cas e fr om thos e w her e l aw s pr ohi bi t i ng gener i c and i nchoat e conduc thave be en found nott o r el at e t o a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance underthe C SA , even i f the under l y i ng conductcl ear l yi nvol ved s uch a s ubs t ance . See, e. g. , L ar a- C hacon v. A s hcr oft , 345 F. 3d 1148, 1154- 56 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ( hol di ng that c o n v ic tio n u n d e r a s ta tu te th a t p u n is h e d a c tiv itie s re la tin g to “ ra c k e te e ri n g p ro c e e d s ,” w hi ch i ncl uded butw as notl i m i t ed t o pr ocee ds fr om “pr ohi bi t ed drugs , ” w as notan offe ns e “r el at i ng t o a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance ”) ; C or onado- D ur azo v. I N S, 123 F. 3d 1322, 13 25 (9th C i r. 19 97 ) ( no t i ng that i n A ri zon a “sol i ci t at i on , a preparat oryoff ense, i s a s e pa r a t e a nd di s t i nc tof

fe ns e fr om t he un de r l y i ng c r i me. ” ) ; Cas t a ne da D e Es pe rv. I N S, 557 F. 2d 79, 83- 84 ( 6th C i r . 1977) ( concl udi ng thatconvi ct i on form i s pr i s i on of a f el ony – i n thi s cas e, cons pi r acyt o pos s es s her oi n – di d notr el at e t o a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance b ec au se th e m isprisi o n statu te co u ld ap p lyto co n ce alm en t of n o n -dru g related fe lon ies); I n r e B at i s t a- H ernandez , 21 I . & N . D ec. 955, 960 ( B I A 1997) ( r efus i ng t o fi ndD esp it e the B IA ’s asse rt ion that itis no t cl ea r w h ethe r th e N ew Jerse ystatu te co v ers 2 the s ame subs t ance s cover ed bythe C ontr ol l ed Subs t ance s A ct , ourr evi ew of the s t atut es r evea l s onl ythr ee di ffe r ence s , none of w hi ch r es ul ti n a l egal l ys i gni fi cantdi ffe r ence b e twe e n th e Ne w J e r s e ys t a tu t e a n d th e Co n tr o l l e d S u b s t a n c e s Ac t . Co mp a r e 2 1 U. S . C. § 812, w i th N . J . St at . A nn. §§ 24: 21- 5 thr ough 24: 21- 8. 1; s ee a l s o 21 C . F. R . § 1308. 13 ( l i s t i ng “K et ami ne, i t s s al t s , i s om er s , and s al t s of i s om er s ” as a Schedul e I I I s ubs t ance , ther ebybr i ngi ng K et ami ne hy dr ochl or i de, the onl ys ubs t ance l i s t ed i n the N ew J er s ey s t atut e butnoti n the C ontr ol l ed Subs t ance s A ct , w i thi n the s cope of the C ontr ol l ed S u b sta n c e s A c t). T h u s, a p p ly in g th e c a teg o ric a l ap p ro a c h , G u l’s c o n v ictio n n e c e ss a rily i m pl i cat es the C ontr ol l ed Subs t ance s A ct , even though i ti s uncl earfr om the r ecor d of convi ct i on w hi ch part i cul ars ubs t ance under l i es hi s offe ns e. I n l i ghtof thatconcl us i on, w e nee d notaddr es s the ques t i on of w hether , had the s t atut es been di ffe r enti n a m e a n in g f

u l m a n n e r, G u l c o u ld h a v e m e t h is b u rd e n o f p ro o f. S e e E v a n s o n v . A tt’ yG e n ., 550 F. 3d 284, 291 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( expl ai ni ng thatw e onl yappl ythe modi fi ed ca t egor i cal appr oach, r atherthan the form al cat egor i cal appr oach, w hen “[ c] onfr ont ed w i th a d isj u n cti v e statute o f c o n v ict ion . . . . ”). 7 convi ct i on as an ac ces s oryaft erthe fa ctforas s i s t i ng a drug tr aff i ckert o be a c onvi ct i on r el at ed t o a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance beca us e, i nt eral i a, “the cr i m e of a cce s s oryaft erthe fa ct h a s h is to ri c a lly b e e n tr e a te d a s a c ri m e s e p a ra te a n d a p a rtf ro m th e u n d e rl y in g c ri m e .” ). I ndeed, “the di s t i nct i on betw een a gener i c s ol i ci t at i on s t atut e orone s peci fi cal l yai m ed at con trol l ed sub st ances i s cr i t i cal w hen ou r i nq uiryi s w hetherthe st atute of con vict i on i s a st at e l aw rel at i ng t o co ntr oll ed sub st ances. ” M i el ew czyk, 75 7 F . 3d at99 7. T hu s, becau se a n in d iv id u a l ca n n o t b e c o n v icte d o f v io latin g § 2 C -3 3 -2 .1 (b ) if a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e is noti nvol ved, w e conc l ude thatthe l aw r el at es t o a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance . 2 G u l f u rth e r a rg u e s th a t h is N e w Je rse yc o n v ictio n is n o t a c rim e b e c a u se it i s cl as s i fi ed as a di s or der l yper s ons offe ns e that“i s s peci fi cal l yexcl uded fr om i m pos i ng any ci vi l di s abi l i tyupon the per s on convi ct ed. ” ( Pet ’ r ’ s B r . 13) . See al s o N . J . St at . A nn.8

§ 2 C :1 -4 (b ) (“ D iso rd e rlyp e rso n s o f f e n se s a n d p e ttyd iso rd e rlyp e rso n s o f f e n se s a re p e tty o f f e n s e s a n d a re n o t c ri m e s w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th e C o n s titu tio n o f

th is S ta te .” ). N ot abl y , how ever , N ew J er s ey ’ s cl as s i fi cat i on of an of fens e ca nnotdi ct at e w hetherthat o f f e n se re n d e rs a n a lien in a d m iss ib le u n d e r § 2 1 2 (a )(2 )(A )(i)(II ). C f. A c o sta v . A sh c ro f t, 341 F. 3d 218, 223 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( hol di ng thats t at e l egi s l atur e ca nnotdet erm i ne how the term “c o n v ict ion ” in th e IN A is t o b e c o n stru ed ). In a d d it ion , there is no m eritto G u l’ s cont ent i on thathi s convi ct i on does notfi tw i thi n § 212( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i ) ( I I ) beca us e i ti s “found among a se r i es of di s or der l yper s ons offe ns es . . . r atherthan among t he ac tual contr ol l ed s ubs t ance s offe ns es ” underN ew J er s eyl aw . ( Pet ’ r ’ s B r . 17) . See B hd. of R . R . T r ai nm en v . B a lt. & O h io R .R . C o ., 3 3 1 U .S . 5 1 9 , 5 2 8 -2 9 (1 9 4 7 ) (h o ld in g th a t “th e tit le o f a sta tu te . . . c a n n o t lim it th e p la in m e a n in g o f th e te x t.” ). F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .