I M G- 1 2 5 NOT 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 os . 05- 2536 and 05- 3062

___________ W AY NE W RI GH T, 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 43 401 505) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e A l bert o J . R i efkohl

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

M ar ch 17, 2010 B efore: R E N D E L L , F ISH E R and G A R T H , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: A pr i l 16, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM W ay n e W ri g h t, a c it izen o f Ja m aica , p eti ti o n s fo r rev iew o f a n o rde r of the B o ard of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) . W e w i l l gr antthe pet i t i on and r emand forfur ther pr ocee di ngs beca us e, as the G overnm entconce des , the B I A err ed w hen i tr el i ed on a2

pol i ce of fi cer ’ s “af

fi davi tof pr obabl e ca us e” t o concl ude thatW r i ghthad bee n convi ct ed o f a n a g g r a v a t e d f

e l o n y. W rig h t w a s a d m itt e d to th e U n ited S tate s a s a law f u l p e rm a n e n t re sid e n t in S e p te m b e r 1 9 9 2 . T h e re a f te r, h e w a s c o n v ic te d o f tw o c ri m e s in N e w Y o rk s ta te c o u rt s . I n 1 9 9 9 , h e wa s c o n v i c t e d o f th i r d - d e g r e e c r i mi n a l p o s s e s s i o n o f ma r i j u a n a . S e e N. Y. Penal L aw 221. 20. I n 2000, he pl eade d gui l tyt o four th- degr ee c r i m i nal s al e of m ar i j uana. See N . Y . Penal L aw § 221. 40. I n O ct ober2002, W r i ghtw as char ged w i th r emovabi l i tyforhavi ng been c onvi ct ed of an a ggr avat ed fe l onyas defi ned i n I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ct§ 101( a) ( 43) ( B ) [8 U. S . C. § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( B) ] ( i l l i c i ttr a f f i c k i n g i n c o n tr o l l e d s u b s t a n c e ) , s e e I NA § 237( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) [8 U . S. C . § 1227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) ] , and forhavi ng been c onvi ct ed of a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e o f f e n s e , s e e IN A § 2 3 7 (a )( 2 )( B )( i) [ 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 (a )( 2 )( B )( i) ]. T h e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e (“ IJ” ) c o n c lu d e d th a t W rig h t w a s re m o v a b le b e c a u se h is convi ct i ons r el at ed t o a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance , butgr ant ed hi s appl i cat i on forcanc el l at i on of r emoval , fi ndi ng, i nt eral i a, thatnei therof hi s convi ct i ons cons t i tut ed aggr avat ed fel oni es . See I N A § 240A ( a) [8 U . S. C . § 1229b( a) ] ( “The A t t orneyG ener al m aycanc el rem o v al . . . if th e a li en . . . h as n o t bee n co n v ict ed o f a n yag g rav ated fe lon y . ”). U l t i m at el y , how ever , the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) s us t ai ned the G overnm ent ’ s appea l , det erm i ni ng thatW r i ght ’ s convi ct i on under§ 221. 40 cons t i tut ed an aggr avat ed fe l onybeca us e i tw as puni s habl e as a fe l onyunderthe fe der al C ontr ol l edI n O ct ober2006, the G overnm entm oved t o s t aythe br i efi ng s chedul e pendi ng t he 1 U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n L opez v. G onzal es , 547 U . S. 1054 ( 2006) ( or dergr ant i ng cert i or ar i ) . A ft erL opez w as deci ded, 549 U . S. 47 ( 2006) , the G overnm entfi l ed a mot i on t o r emand, ar gui ng thatL opez “ pr ovi des an author i t at i ve i nt erpr et at i on of w hen a s t at e drug offe ns e ca n cons t i tut e an a ggr avat ed fe l onythatthe B oar d di d nothave the bene fi tof w hen i tm ade i t s deci s i on. ” W r i ghtoppos es the mot i on, a ss e rtin g th a t “th e iss u e d e c id e d in L o p e z is n e ith e r b e f o re th e B IA n o r b e f

o re th is C o u rt.” T h e C o u rt in L o p e z h e ld th a t a s tate f e lo n yc o n v ictio n f

o r a d ru g o f

f e n se th a t is tr eat ed as a mi s demeanorunderthe fe der al C SA does notcons t i tut e an “ aggr avat ed fel ony ” underthe I N A . I d. at59. N ot abl y , L opez di d notal t erG erbi er , underw hi ch the B I A found thatW r i ght ’ s s t at e mi s demeanorconvi ct i on cons t i tut ed an a ggr avat ed fe l ony beca us e i tw oul d be puni s habl e as a fe der al fel ony . B eca us e Lopez w oul d notal t erthe B I A ’ s deci s i on i n t hi s cas e, w e w i l l denythe governm ent ’ s m ot i on t o r emand. 3 S u b stan ce s A ct (“C S A ”). Se e G erb ier v. H o lm es, 28 0 F . 3 d 2 9 7 , 3 0 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). In m aki ng thi s det erm i nat i on the B oar d l ooked t o w hati tdes cr i bed as “an a ffi davi tof pr obabl e ca us e – the ac cus at oryi ns trum entpr epar ed bythe arr es t i ng offi ceri n connec t i on w i th the fi l i ng of a c r i m i nal compl ai nt . ” I n thatdocument , the off i cers t at ed thathe o b se rv e d a n in d iv id u a l “h a n d d e f e n d a n t (W rig h t) a su m o f U n ited S tate s c u rre n c ya n d in excha nge def

endant( W r i ght ) di d t hen hand [ the i ndi vi dual ] a quant i tyof m ar i j uana. ” Such an off

ens e, the B I A concl uded, w oul d be puni s habl e under21 U . S. C . §§ 841( a) ( 1) & ( b) ( 1) ( D ) , w hi ch make i ta fe l onyt o know i ngl yori nt ent i onal l y“manufactur e, d is tr ib u te , o r d is p e n s e , o r p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to m a n u f a c tu re , d is tr ib u te , o r d is p e n s e , a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e .” C o n se q u e n tly , the B o a rd o rd e re d W rig h t’s re m o v a l. 1 We h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rWr i g h t ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w p u r s u a n tt o I NA § 242( a) ( 2) ( D ) [8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) ] . See G ar ci a v. A t t ’ yG en. , 462 F. 3d 287, 290- 91 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overW r i ght ’ s l egal ar gum entthatheN e ith e r o f W rig h t’s c o n v ictio n s c o n stitu te a n a g g ra v a ted f e lo n yu n d e r th e “ ill icit 2 tr aff i cki ng” r out e. T he § 221. 40 convi ct i on i s a s t at e mi s demeanor , s ee N . Y Penal L aw 221. 40 ( “C r i m i nal s al e of mar i huana i n the fourth degr ee i s a cl as s A m i s demeanor ”) , and the cr i m i nal pos s es s i on convi ct i on under§ 221. 20 does notcont ai n a tr aff i cki ng el ement beca us e i tdoes not“i nvol ve ‘ the unl aw ful tr adi ng ordeal i ng of a c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance . ’ ” S ee G erb ier, 2 8 0 F . 3 d at 30 5 (qu o ti n g M att er o f D av is, 2 0 I. & N . D ec . 5 3 6 , 5 4 1 (B IA 1 9 9 2 )). 4 w as notconvi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l ony . See N g v. A t t ’ yG en. , 436 F. 3d 392, 395 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). “W e app l ytw o indepe nd ent t est s for det erm i ning w hethera st at e drug o ffen se cons t i tut es an aggr avat ed fe l ony : the ‘ i l l i ci ttr aff i cki ng el ement ’ r out e and the

‘ hypothet i cal fede r al fel ony ’ r out e. ” Evanson v. A t t ’ yG en. , 550 F. 3d 284, 288- 89 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . U nderthe “i l l i ci ttr aff i cki ng i n anycontr ol l ed s ubs t ance ” r out e, the drug o ff en se m u st ( 1 ) be a f

elon yu n d er the stat e law an d (2) c o n tai n a “ ‘traf fick ing elem en t’ -- i. e., itm u st i n v o lve ‘the u n law fu l trad ing o r de ali n g o f a co n tr o ll ed su b stan ce . ’” G erb ier, 2 280 F. 3d at305. T he “hypothet i cal fel onyr out e” r equi r es thatthe off ens e, how ever c h a r a c t e r i z e d b yth e s t a t e , b e p u n i s h a b l e a s a f e l o n yu n d e rth e CS A. I d . a t3 0 6 . T h u s , we m us tcompar e the el ement s of the s t at e drug offe ns e t o the el ement s of a f eder al drug pr ovi s i on r efe r ence d i n 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) ( 2) . See St eel e v. B l ackman, 236 F. 3d 130, 1 3 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) (cit ing D av is, 2 0 I. & N . D ec . at 54 4 ). U nderthe C SA , i ti s a fe l onyt o know i ngl yori nt ent i onal l y“manufactur e, dis tri bu t e, or di spense, or possess w i th int ent t o m anu facture, dis tri bu t e, or di spense” les s than 50 ki l ogr ams of mar i j uana. See 21 U . S. C . §§ 841( a) ( 1) & 841( b) ( 1) ( D ) . B utU n d e r 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 4 (a ), a d e f e n d a n t’s p o ss ib le s e n ten c e m a yb e e n h a n c e d to 3 tw o y ear s i f he “ comm i t s s uch off ens e af t era . . . pr i orconvi ct i on foranydrug, nar cot i c, o r ch em ical of

fe n se c h arg ea b le un d er the law o f a n yS tat e, ha s b ec o m e f inal. ” It ap p ea rs thatW r i ghtcomm i t t ed hi s § 221. 40 offe ns e af t erhi s convi ct i on under§ 221. 20 had become fi nal . W e have hel d, how ever , thata pr i orconvi ct i on cannotbe us ed t o enhanc e a s ent ence forpurpos es of det erm i ni ng w hetheran al i en has been c onvi ct ed of a n “aggr avat ed fe l ony ” w hen hi s pr i orconvi ct i on w as neverl i t i gat ed as partof the cr i m i nal pr ocee di ng i n t he cr i m e forw hi ch the al i en i s bei ng r emoved. See St eel e, 236 F. 3d 130, 137- 38 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ; cf. Shepar d v. U . S. , 544 U . S. 13, 25- 26 ( 2005) ( s ugges t i ng that ther e ar e good cons t i tut i onal r eas ons forr equi r i ng thatthe pr i orconvi ct i on m us thave b ee n ch arg ed as a n elem en t i n the n ew “e n h an ce d ” o ff en se). 5 “ d istrib u tin g a sm a ll am o u n t o f m a riju a n a f

o r n o re m u n e ra tio n ” is tre a ted a s s im p le pos s es s i on, and i s puni s habl e as a fe der al m i s demeanor . See 21 U . S. C . § 841( b) ( 4) . “A 3 s t at e mar i

j uana c onvi ct i on i s ther efor e onl yequi val entt o a fe der al drug fel onyi f the offe ns e i nvol ved paym entorm or e than a s m al l amount of m ar i j uana. ” Evanson, 550 F. 3d at289. I n e v a l u a t i n g wh e th e ra n a l i e n ’ s c o n v i c t i o n c o n s t i tu t e s a n a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n y , we pr es um pt i vel yappl ya “f or m al cat egor i cal appr oach, ” w hi ch pr ecl udes us fr om r evi ew i ng the fa ctual bas i s forthe under l y i ng convi ct i on. See Si ngh v. A s hcr oft , 383 F. 3d 144, 1 4 7 -4 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ); s e e a ls o T a y lo r v . U n ite d S ta te s , 4 9 5 U .S . 5 7 5 , 6 0 0 -0 2 (1 9 9 0 ). T her e ar e, how ever , exce pt i ons t o t hi s appr oach thatperm i ta courtt o l ook bey ond the fac e of the s t atut e. See Si ngh, 383 F. 3d at162- 63; s ee a l s o G ar ci a v. A t t ’ yG en. , 462 F. 3d 287, 291- 92 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . Fori ns t ance , a fe der al s t atut e thatenumer at es part i cul ar c a teg o rie s o f

o f f e n se s th a t co n stitu te a g g ra v a ted f e lo n ies m a yin v ite in q u iryin to th e f a c ts under l y i ng the convi ct i on. See, e. g. , N i j haw an v. H ol der , 129 S. C t . 2294, 2300 ( 2009)6

( hol di ng thatI N A § 101( a) ( 43) ( M ) ( i ) , w hi ch r efe r s t o “an of fens e that. . . i nvol ves fr aud o r de ce itin w h ich th e los s to the v ict im o r victi m s ex ce ed s $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 ” “ ca ll s fo r a

‘ ci r cumst ance - s peci fi c, ’ nota ‘ cat egor i cal , ’ i nt erpr et at i on. ”) . B utthe enumer at i ng s ubs ect i on ati s s ue i n t hi s cas e, § 101( a) ( 43) ( B ) , us es “l anguage thatm us tr efe rt o [a] g e n e ri c c ri m e [ ],” a n d th e re f o re d o e s n o t c a ll f

o r a “ c ir c u m s ta n c e s p e c if ic ” in te rp re ta tio n . I d. D epartur e fr om the form al cat egor i cal appr oach a l s o m aybe w arr ant ed w her e the s t atut e of c onvi ct i on cont ai ns di s j unct i ve el ement s , s om e of w hi ch ar e s uffi ci entfor convi ct i on of the fe der al offe ns e and other s w hi ch ar e not . See Si ngh, 383 F. 3d at 1 6 2 -6 3 . U n d e r su c h c irc u m sta n c e s, w e a p p lya “ m o d if ied c a teg o ric a l ap p ro a c h ” to det erm i ne w hi ch of the al t ernat i ve el ement s w as the ac tual bas i s forthe under l y i ng con vict i on . S ee Jean-L ou i s v. A t t ’yG en. , 58 2 F . 3d 46 2, 46 6 (3d C i r. 20 09 ); see al so Shepar d, 544 U . S. at19- 20. T hi s “modi fi ed ca t egor i cal appr oach, ” w hen appl i ed t o cas es r es ol ved bygui l typl eas , perm i t s court s t o cons i derthe “s t atut orydefi ni t i on, char gi ng document , w r i t t en pl ea a gr eement , tr ans cr i ptof the pl ea c ol l oquy , and anyexpl i ci tfac tual fi ndi ng bythe tr i al j udge t o w hi ch the def endantas s ent ed. ” Shepar d, 544 U . S. at16, 20- 23. W r i ghtpl eade d gui l tyt o vi ol at i ng N . Y Penal L aw § 221. 40, w hi ch pr ovi des that “[a ] per s on i s gui l tyof cr i m i nal s al e of [ m ar i j uana] i n the fourth degr ee w hen he know i ngl yand unl aw ful l ys el l s [m ar i j uana] . . . . ” I m por t ant l y , al though § 221. 40 appl i es7

t o the “s al e” of

m ar i j uana, the def

i ni t i on of “s al e” e ncompass es “anyform of tr ans ferof a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance , ” w hetherornotthe tr ans ferw as form oney . See N . Y . Penal L aw 220. 00; Peopl e v. St ar l i ng, 650 N . E . 2d 387, 390 ( N . Y . 1995) ; St eel e, 236 F. 3d at131 ( not i ng that“one maybe convi ct ed of ‘ cr i m i nal s al e’ [under§ 221. 40] w i thoutevi dence of a s al e as comm onl yunder s t ood. ”) . T her efor e, W r i ght ’ s convi ct i on under§ 221. 40 coul d have be en fora nonr emuner at i ve tr ans ferof a s m al l quant i tyof m ar i j uana. See M a rtin e z v . M u k a se y , 5 5 1 F .3 d 1 1 3 , 1 1 9 n .6 , 1 2 0 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (s tatin g th a t “w h ile s ect i on 221. 40 m aycoveranyquant i tyovertw o gr ams, i tar guabl ycover s onl yquant i t i es b e lo w 2 5 g ra m s , w ith a n yla rg e r q u a n tity f a llin g in to ” a n o th e r s e c tio n o f th e s ta tu te ). Be c a u s e s u c h a n o f

f e n s e wo u l d b e o n l ya f

e d e r a l mi s d e me a n o ru n d e r2 1 U. S . C. § 841( b) ( 4) , W r i ght ’ s convi ct i on does notcons t i tut e an a ggr avat ed fe l onyunderthe form al cat egor i cal appr oach. See M art i nez, 551 F. 3d at120. T he B I A appl i ed the “modi fi ed ca t egor i cal appr oach” i n thi s cas e and c oncl uded th a t W rig h t’s o f

f e n se q u a lifie d a s a n a g g ra v a ted f e lo n y . T h e sc o p e o f

a n a lien ’s g u ilty pl ea c an be a s cert ai ned byexami ni ng, i nt eral i a, the “c har gi ng document . ” Shepar d, 544 U . S. at20- 23; G ar ci a, 462 F. 3d at293. I m por t ant l y , how ever , i ti s i m perm i s s i bl e t o l ook t o pol i ce r eport s orcompl ai ntappl i cat i ons t o det erm i ne w hethera gui l typl ea “ convi ct i on w as ‘ nece s s ar i l y ’ fora part i cul arcr i m e def i ned bythe [s t at e] s t atut e thatm eet s the a g g ra v a te d f

e lo n yc ri te ri o n .” L a ri n -U llo a v . G o n z a le s , 4 6 2 F .3 d 4 5 6 , 4 6 4 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). I n thi s cas e, the B I A r el i ed on a tw o- page s t at e courtdocumenti n w hi ch the arr es t i ng8

o f f ic e r a tte s ts th a t h e o b s e rv e d W ri g h t r e c e iv in g m o n e yin e x c h a n g e f o r m a ri ju a n a . U n d e r th o se f

a c ts, W rig h t’s c o n v ictio n w o u ld b e c o n sid e re d a n a g g ra v a ted f e lo n y . It i s notcl ear , though, thatthe off i cer ’ s aff i davi ti s the i ns trum entbyw hi ch W r i ghtw as char ged, ori f i ti s m er el yan af fi davi toffe r ed t o the s t at e courti n s uppor tof cha r ges agai ns thi m . N ot abl y , even i f the af fi davi tw as the cha r gi ng document , i tw as not r efe r ence d i n t he s t at e court“s ent ence and comm i t m ent ” or der , w hi ch s t at es onl ythat W r i ghtw as “convi ct ed of a cr i m e of 221. 40. ” See Evans on, 550 F. 3d at293 ( s t at i ng t hat “a c our tappl y i ng the modi fi ed ca t egor i cal appr oach mayonl ycons i derthe cha r gi ng d o c u m e n tt o th e e x t e n tth a tth e p e t i t i o n e rw a s a c tu a l l yc o n v i c t e d o f th e c h a r g e s . ” ) . We c o n c lu d e , the re f

o re , tha t th e sta te c o u rt d o c u m e n ts a re in su f f icie n t to e sta b lish th e f

a c ts to w hi ch W r i ghtactual l ypl eade d gui l ty . C ons equent l y , the B I A err ed w hen i tcons i der ed the off i cer ’ s aff i davi tt o det erm i ne w hetherW r i ghthad bee n convi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fel ony . See Shepar d, 544 U . S. at20- 21; T ay l or , 495 U . S. at600- 02. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l gr antthe pet i t i on and r emand forfur ther p ro c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith th is o p in io n . T h e G o v e rn m e n t’ s m o tio n to re m a n d is d e n ie d . See footnot e 1, s upr a.