N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M AC JHAY YAGAO,

Pe t i tione r, v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 16-72812 Age n c y No. A044-946-445 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 a nd Subm itte d April 13, 2018 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , C LIFTON, a nd M . SM ITH, C i rc u it Judge s. M a c jha y Ya ga o pe titions for re vie w of the de te rm ination by the Im m igration Judge (“ IJ” ) and the B o ard of Im m igration Appe a l s (“ B IA” ) (c olle c tive ly , the

“ Age nc y ” ) that

he is re m ova

ble ba se d on his c onvic tion of tra n sporting m ore tha

n 28.5 gra m s of m a rijua na . Se e C a l. He a lth & Sa fe ty C o de § 11360(a). He c onte nds



# FIL ED M AY22 2018 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.that

his c onvic tion wa s for a

n offe nse “ re l ating to a

c ontrolle d substa

nc e , ” but tha

t the fa c ts unde rly ing the c onvic tion m e t the “ p osse ssion for one ’ s own use ” e xc e ption to re m ova l for only a single prior drug offe nse . Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1227(a )(2)(B )(i). Ya ga o’ s tra

nsporta t ion of m arijua

na c onvic tion wa s his se c o nd c onvic tion unde r C a l. He a lth & Sa fe ty C ode § 11360(a). He wa s pre v iously c onvic te d

of im porting m arijua

na into C a lifornia , a

fe l ony offe nse . He is the re fore ine ligiblefor the e xe m ption from

re m o v a l for “ a single offe nse involving posse ssion for one ’ s own use of 30 gra

m s or le s s of m arijua

na .” 8 U.S.C . § 1227(a)(2)(B )(i) (e m pha sis a dde d). Ya ga o a

rgue s , howe v e r, tha

t be c a use his e arlie r c onvic tion wa s not spe c ifie d in his notic e to a ppe ar, a nd be c a use the Age nc y

did not c onside r his e arlie r c onvic tion, we m ay not uphold the

Age nc y ’ s re m ova l finding on this ground. Eve n if we a ssum e tha t he is c orre c t, Ya ga o is none the le ss re m ova ble on the g rounds theAge nc y a d d re sse d. Ya ga o c onte nds tha

t the Age nc y should ha

ve a p plie d a c ate goric a l inste a d of a c irc um sta

nc e -spe c ific a

pproa c h to de te rm ining whe t he r his sta

t e c onvic tion for transporta tion of m arijua

na m e t the fe de ra l sta

tute ’ s pe rsona l use e x e m

ption from re m ova l. Ya ga o c annot show tha t the sta te sta tute of c onvic tion c rim i na liz e s c onduc t tha

t would qualify

for the e xe m

ption. 2Unde r the c ate goric a l a pproa c h, we de te rm ine whe the r the sta te sta tute c rim ina liz e s c onduc t tha

t e x te nds be y ond the bounds of the fe de ra l offe nse , suc h a s posse s sion for one ’ s own use of 30 gra m s or le ss of m a

rijua na . S e e Gue rre ro-Silv a v . Holde r , 599 F.3d 1090, 1092 (9th C ir. 2010). Thesta te sta tute c rim ina liz e s transporta tion of m arijua

na , whic h is a

se pa ra te offe nse from

posse ssion of m arijua na unde r C a lifornia la

w. C ompare C a l. He a lth & Sa fe ty C ode § 11357, w ith id. § 11360. C a lifornia tre ats tra nsporta tion a s a m ore se rious offe nse tha

n m e re posse ssion for pe rsona l use . Se e Pe oplev . Roge rs , 486 P.2d 129, 133–34 (C a l. 1971) (In B ank), supe rse de d by statute on othe r grounds as rec ognize d by Pe oplev . Martine

z , 413 P.3d 1125 (C a l . 2018); se e also Martine z , 413 P.3d a

t 1129. Thus, Yag a o is not e xe m pte d from re m ova l, be c a

use his sta

te c onvic tion of transporta tion of m arijua

na is a c ate goric a l m atc h to the fe de ra l re m ova l sta t ute that e nc om p a sse s c rim e s re l ating to c ontrolle d substa nc e s othe r tha

n a single offe nse involving posse ssion for one ’ s own use of 30 gra m s or le ss of m arijua

na . The re wa s no a

buse of disc re tion in the Age nc y ’ s re fusing to gra n t m ultiple c ontinua nc e s. S e e Garc ia v . Ly nc h , 798 F.3d 876, 881 (9th C i r. 2015) (re v ie wing de nia l of c ontinua

nc e for a b use of disc re tion). W e re c e ntly

he ld tha t we hav e jurisdic tion to re vie w the Age nc y ’ s de nia l of a dm inistra

tive c losure . Gonzale

z-C arav e o v . Se

ssions , 882 F.3d 885, 893 (9th C i r. 32018). W e re vie w for a b u se of disc re tion. S

e e id. at 890–91 (c iting 8 C .F.R . §§ 1003.10(b), 1003.1(d)(1)(ii); Matte r of Av e tisy an , 25 I. & N. De c . 688, 694 (B IA 2012)). He re , the Age nc y de nie d a dm i nistra

t ive c losure be c a

use Ya ga o ha d be e n de nie d post-c onvic tion re lie f in sta t e c ourt a nd the prospe c t for fe de ra l re lie f wa s spe c u lative at be s t. The re wa s no a buse of disc re tion. Pe tition DE N IE D .

4