Opinion ID: 812106
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Collateral Attack on Immigration Proceedings

Text: Oseguera contends that the IJ erroneously found him removable, and that even if he was removable, the IJ violated his due process rights by failing to inform him of the availability of potential relief from removal. We review de novo a collateral attack on an underlying removal order. United States v. Ahumada-Aguilar, 295 F.3d 943, 947 (9th Cir. 2002). Oseguera first contends that he was not properly removable because his drug paraphernalia conviction was not a “violation . . . relating to a controlled substance,” under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). In Luu-Le v. INS, 224 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 2000), we held that Arizona’s statute criminalizing the possession of drug paraphernalia, Ariz. Rev. UNITED STATES V . OSEGUERA -MADRIGAL 5 Stat. § 13-3415(A),1 is, by its plain language, clearly “relating to” a controlled substance for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Id. at 914-16. In Bermudez v. Holder, 586 F.3d 1167, (9th Cir. 2009), we held that the “materially identical” drug paraphernalia statute in Hawaii, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 329-43.5(a),2 was similarly “relating to a controlled substance.” Id. at 1168-69. The text of the Washington statute to which Oseguera pled guilty in 1994, Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.412(1),3 is materially identical to both the Hawaii and Arizona statutes. Compare Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.412(1), with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3415(A), and Haw. Rev. Stat. § 329-43.5(a). Therefore, Oseguera’s drug 1 The Arizona statute, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3415(A), provides: It is unlawful for any person to use, or to possess with intent to use, drug paraphernalia to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture, compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, inject, ingest, inhale or otherwise introduce into the human body a drug in violation of this chapter. 2 The Hawaii statute, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 329-43.5(a), provides: It is unlawful for any person to use, or to possess with intent to use, drug paraphernalia to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture, compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, inject, ingest, inhale, or otherwise introduce into the human body a controlled substance in violation of this chapter. 3 The W ashington statute, W ash. Rev. Code §69.50.412(1), provides: It is unlawful for any person to use drug paraphernalia to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture, compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, inject, ingest, inhale, or otherwise introduce into the human body a controlled substance. 6 UNITED STATES V . OSEGUERA -MADRIGAL paraphernalia conviction clearly was one “relating to a controlled substance” under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). The BIA did not err in finding him removable on that basis. Oseguera next argues that even if he was properly found removable, he should have been informed of the possibility of relief through a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h), and that the IJ violated his due process by failing to inform him that such relief was available. We have repeatedly held that an IJ’s failure to advise an alien of apparent eligibility for relief violates due process and, where accompanied by prejudice, serves as the basis for a collateral attack on the removal order. See, e.g., United States v. LopezVelasquez, 629 F.3d 894, 896-97 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc); United States v. Garcia-Martinez, 228 F.3d 956, 960 (9th Cir. 2000); Moran-Enriquez v. INS, 884 F.2d 420, 423 (9th Cir. 1989). In this case, however, there was no relief for which Oseguera was plausibly eligible. While § 1182(h) allows the Attorney General to waive certain kinds of convictions under § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i), a conviction “relating to a controlled substance” under § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) is waivable only “insofar as it relates to a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). Oseguera’s drug paraphernalia conviction was not a conviction for “simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana.” The information to which Oseguera pled guilty specifically charged that Oseguera used drug paraphernalia in that Oseguera “did use a silver spoon and lighter to inject, ingest, inhale or introduce into the human body cocaine, a controlled substance.” Because the drug paraphernalia Oseguera was convicted of using was related to cocaine, not marijuana, he plainly was ineligible for a waiver. Cf. UNITED STATES V . OSEGUERA -MADRIGAL 7 Escobar Barraza v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 388, 392-93 (7th Cir. 2008) (holding that one convicted of possession of drug paraphernalia may be eligible for a § 1182(h) waiver where the paraphernalia related to the use of marijuana “and the implied quantity is under 30 grams”). The IJ did not err by failing to inform him about relief for which he was ineligible. For these reasons, the district court did not err in denying Oseguera’s motion to dismiss the indictment.4