Opinion ID: 2975286
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Matter of Garcia-Torres

Text: A recent BIA decision supports our analysis. In Matter of Garcia-Torres, No. A45-864-724, (BIA Oct. 19, 2006), the BIA held that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that GarciaTorres’s two convictions under ORC § 2925.03(A) qualified as an “aggravated felony” under the INA. The BIA first addressed the “hypothetical federal felony” approach. The BIA explained that offering to sell a controlled substance can be simplified to a verbal or written communication, which entails no physical delivery of a controlled substance, and, without the act of delivery, Garcia-Torres could not be found to have distributed cocaine. Similarly, the BIA also concluded that GarciaTorres’s conviction did not amount to an aggravated felony under the “illicit drug trafficking” approach. The BIA found that the record failed to disclose whether Garcia-Torres was convicted of selling cocaine for profit. The BIA noted that it is possible for an individual to be convicted under ORC § 2925.03(A)(1) without trading or dealing in a controlled substance for profit. Even though - 11 - No. 06-3467 Mendieta-Robles v. Gonzales the BIA found that the record did not support a conclusion that Garcia-Torres’s conviction qualified as an aggravated felony, the BIA remanded the case to the immigration court to allow both parties the opportunity to introduce evidence as to whether either of Garcia-Torres’s convictions qualified as an aggravated felony under the INA. Although we agree with the BIA’s analysis in Garcia-Torres, a remand in this case is unnecessary. As already noted, reviewing courts “must look only to the statutory definitions of the prior offenses,” and may not “consider other evidence concerning the defendant’s prior crimes,” including, “the particular facts underlying [a] conviction[].” Taylor, 495 U.S. at 600. Only in limited circumstances may courts look beyond the conviction and examine documentation or judicially noticeable facts that clearly establish the conviction as a predicate conviction, such as the indictment, the judgment of conviction, a signed guilty plea, or the transcript from the plea proceedings. Rivera-Sanchez, 247 F.3d at 908. Because, in this case, the relevant documents are already part of the record, a remand to supplement the record is unnecessary. We have a complete record with which to make a final determination.