Opinion ID: 613474
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Record of Conviction Is Inconclusive as to Whether Rosas-Castaneda's Offense Qualifies as an Aggravated Felony.

Text: To determine whether Rosas-Castaneda's conviction for attempted transportation for sale of more than two pounds under Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-3405 constitutes an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B), the court applies the two-step categorical approach articulated in Taylor. [2] See Parrilla v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 1038, 1042-44 (9th Cir.2005). Rosas-Castaneda's statute of conviction provides in relevant part: A person shall not knowingly ... transport for sale, import into this state or offer to transport for sale or import into this state, sell, transfer or offer to sell or transfer marijuana. Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-3405(A)(4). A conviction under this statute does not qualify categorically as an aggravated felony because it contains solicitation offenses, [3] which we have held do not qualify as aggravated felonies within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B). See Sandoval-Lua, 499 F.3d at 1130 (citing Leyva-Licea v. INS, 187 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1999)). Because Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-3405 punishes solicitation, the full range of conduct encompassed by the statute does not constitute an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B). Sandoval-Lua, 499 F.3d at 1128 (quoting United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 247 F.3d 905, 909 (9th Cir.2001)). Turning to the modified categorical approach, we consider whether the record contains judicially noticeable documents which satisfy [Rosas-Castaneda's] burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that his controlled substance conviction under [Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-3405] does not constitute a conviction of an aggravated felony. Sandoval-Lua, 499 F.3d at 1129. The list of judicially noticeable documents that this court may consider in applying the modified categorical approach is limited to the charging document, written plea agreement, transcript of plea colloquy, and any explicit factual finding by the trial judge to which the defendant assented. Id. (quoting Shepard, 544 U.S. at 16, 125 S.Ct. 1254). Where a record of conviction proves inconclusive, an alien carries his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that she has not been convicted of an aggravated felony. Id. at 1130. The record in this case includes the charging document and a copy of the plea agreement. Together these documents reveal only that Rosas-Castaneda was convicted of one count of [a]ttempted transportation of marijuana for sale, involving more than two pounds, a class 3 felony in violation of Ariz.Rev.Stat. §§ 13-1001, 13-3405, 13-3401, 13-610, 13-701, 13-702, and 13-801. If judicially noticeable facts would allow the defendant to be convicted of an offense other than that defined as a qualifying offense, then those facts do not satisfy the modified categorical approach, which requires that a court determine if the record unequivocally establishes that the defendant was convicted of the generically defined crime. United States v. Navidad-Marcos, 367 F.3d 903, 909 (9th Cir.2004) (quotation marks and internal citation omitted). Neither document in the record of conviction produces any specific information that definitively rules out the possibility that Rosas was convicted of a solicitation offense under Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-3405. We therefore hold the record of conviction inconclusive, we grant Rosas-Castaneda's petition for review, vacate the BIA's order denying him cancellation of removal, and we remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion to permit the government to put forth reliable evidence to show that the petitioner was convicted of an aggravated felony. PETITION GRANTED.