Opinion ID: 220999
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: We nevertheless deny the petition in this case.

Text: Because our decision applies only prospectively, we apply the rule announced in Lujan-Armendariz to the petition for review in this case. In Lujan-Armendariz, we held that an expunged conviction for simple possession did not constitute a conviction for immigration purposes. In later cases, we held that an expunged conviction for a lesser offense to simple possession also did not constitute a conviction for immigration purposes. Ramirez-Altamirano, 563 F.3d at 808-09; Cardenas-Uriarte, 227 F.3d at 1137. In those cases, it was clear that the conviction was for a lesser offense because the alien was convicted of a single crime that carried a lesser penalty than the crime of simple possession. See Ramirez-Altamirano, 563 F.3d at 808 (The structure of [the alien's] plea agreement obviously was intended to minimize his culpability by allowing him to avoid facing the more serious drug possession charge, and reflects the state's view as to the seriousness of the offense.). Here, however, Petitioner was convicted of being under the influence of methamphetamine. Being under the influence is not a lesser crime than simple possession. Although we have held that possession of paraphernalia is a lesser crime than possession of a drug itself, at least where the defendant pleaded down from an original charge of simple possession, Cardenas-Uriarte, 227 F.3d at 1137, being under the influence is not a possession crime at all, and it is thus qualitatively different from any federal conviction for which FFOA treatment would be available. Being under the influence is not a lesser offense to simple possession because it arguably is more serious than mere possession; being under the influence alters one's sober state of mind and carries an immediate risk of dangerous behavior, which mere possession does not necessarily create. For example, one could foolishly agree to hide drugs for a friend, which does not create an immediate risk of dangerous behavior. We therefore overrule Rice v. Holder, 597 F.3d 952 (9th Cir.2010). [7] The BIA did not err. Petition DENIED.