Court Opinion

ID: 9899404
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-16 18:01:06.932801+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:27.124287
License: Public Domain

FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                            NOV 16 2023
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA DEL SOCORRO DELGADO-                       No.   15-70657
RODRIGUEZ,
                                                 Agency No. A034-571-974
              Petitioner,

 v.                                              MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

              Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                            Submitted November 14, 2023**
                                Pasadena, California

Before: RAWLINSON, HURWITZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Maria Del Socorro Delgado-Rodriguez (Delgado), a native and citizen of

Mexico, petitions for review of a decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals

(BIA) dismissing her appeal of a removal order. Delgado contends that her

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
convictions under California Health & Safety Code §§ 11378 and 11379(a) cannot

serve as bases for removal because the statutes do not contain a drug trafficking

element, and thus do not constitute aggravated felonies. We review de novo

“whether a state statutory crime qualifies as an aggravated felony.” Jauregui-

Cardenas v. Barr, 946 F.3d 1116, 1118 (9th Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). We

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

       1.     The BIA did not err when determining that § 11378 is an aggravated

felony. We have consistently held that § 11378 contains “an illicit trafficking

element.” United States v. Verduzco-Rangel, 884 F.3d 918, 923 (9th Cir. 2018)

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). And, contrary to Delgado’s

contention, the record of conviction conclusively demonstrates that the conviction

involved methamphetamine, a federally controlled substance. See 21 U.S.C. §

812(c), scheds. II(c), III(a)(3).

       The minute order from the state court proceeding reflects that Delgado pled

nolo contendere to violating § 11378 as charged in Count 2 of the felony

complaint, which alleged that Delgado unlawfully possessed methamphetamine

“for purpose of sale.” See United States v. Torre-Jimenez, 771 F.3d 1163, 1168

(9th Cir. 2014) (“Where the minute order . . . specifies that a defendant pleaded

guilty to a particular count of a criminal complaint, the court may consider the

                                          2
facts alleged in the complaint. . . .”) (citations omitted). Thus, Delgado’s removal

was correctly premised on her conviction under § 11378.

      2.     Delgado’s arguments relating to her conviction under § 11379(a) do

not support a remand because the BIA held that Delgado’s conviction under that

statute did not constitute an aggravated felony. See Vukmirovic v. Ashcroft, 362

F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that remand is appropriate only when

the denial of relief was based on an error of law).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                           3