No. 13-697 in the Supreme Court of the United States
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
No. 13-697 In the Supreme Court of the United States PEDRO MADRIGAL-BARCENAS, PETITIONER v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION DONALD B. VERRILLI, JR. Solicitor General Counsel of Record STUART F. DELERY Assistant Attorney General DONALD E. KEENER JOHN W. BLAKELEY Attorneys Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 [email protected] (202) 514-2217 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether an alien seeking cancellation of removal satisfies his burden of proving that he has not been convicted of a violation of any State “law or regulation * * * relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of title 21),” 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), by noting that the record of his drug-paraphernalia con- viction did not disclose that his conviction involved a specific substance listed in the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq. (I) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Opinions below ................................................................................ 1 Jurisdiction ...................................................................................... 1 Statement ......................................................................................... 2 Argument ......................................................................................... 4 Conclusion ...................................................................................... 15 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Alvarez Acosta v. United States Att’y Gen., 524 F.3d 1191 (11th Cir. 2008) ............................................ 10 Bermudez v. Holder, 586 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 2009) ............ 10 Castillo v. Holder, 539 Fed. Appx. 243 (4th Cir. 2013) ....... 10 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) ...................................................................................... 14 Desai v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 762 (7th Cir. 2008) ................. 12 Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) ............. 14 Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007) ................ 7 INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415 (1999) ........................ 5 Luu-Le v. INS, 224 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 2000) ................... 3, 10 Martinez Espinoza, In re, 25 I. & N. Dec. 118 (B.I.A. 2009) ............................................................................. 3, 5, 6, 7 Martinez-Gomez, In re, 14 I. & N. Dec. 104 (B.I.A. 1972) ......................................................................................... 6 Mellouli v. Holder, 719 F.3d 995 (8th Cir. 2013) ............. 7, 10 Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013) ......... 7, 9, 12, 14 Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (1992) ........................................................................................ 5 Paulus, In re, 11 I. & N. Dec. 274 (B.I.A. 1965) ........... 12, 13 Rojas v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 728 F.3d 203 (2013) ............................................. 11, 12, 13, 14 Ruiz-Vidal v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2007) ...... 13 (III) IV Cases—Continued: Page United States v. Oseguera-Madrigal, 700 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2012) ........................................................................ 10 Young v. Holder, 697 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2012) ...................... 7 Statutes and regulations: Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ................. 8 Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. ........................................................................................ 2 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) ..................................................... 2 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2) .............................................................. 2 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B) ......................................................... 4 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) ..................................... 2, 5, 10, 11 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(4) ..................................................... 2, 4, 5 8 U.S.C. 1229a ...................................................................... 2 8 U.S.C. 1229b ..................................................................... 2 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(C) .................................................. 2, 3 Nev.: Admin. Code § 453.530(7) (2013) ....................................... 8 Rev. Stat. Ann. § 453.566 (LexisNexis 2005) ................... 2 8 C.F.R. 1240.8(d) .................................................................. 2, 4 21 C.F.R.: Section 1300.01(b) ............................................................... 8 Section 1308.13(f) ................................................................ 8 Section 1308.14(e) (2008) .................................................... 9 Miscellaneous: 43 Fed. Reg. 43,295 (Sept. 25, 1978) ....................................... 9 56 Fed. Reg. 5753 (Feb. 13, 1991) ........................................... 8 76 Fed. Reg. 77,330 (Dec. 12, 2011) ......................................... 9 V Miscellaneous—Continued: Page Nat’l Ctr. for Biotechnology Info.: 4-estren-3,17-diol, http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/summary/summary.cgi?cid=9835303& loc=ec_rcs (last visited Apr. 30, 2014) ....................... 8 Methandrostenolone, http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/summary/summary.cgi?cid=6300& loc=ec_rcs (last visited Apr. 30, 2014) ....................... 8 In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 13-697 PEDRO MADRIGAL-BARCENAS, PETITIONER v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION OPINIONS BELOW The opinion of the court of appeals (Pet. App. 1a- 3a) is not published in the Federal Reporter but is reprinted at 507 Fed. Appx. 715. The decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Pet. App. 4a-10a) and the immigration judge (Pet. App. 14a-16a) are unre- ported. JURISDICTION The judgment of the court of appeals was entered on February 11, 2013. A petition for rehearing was denied on July 29, 2013 (Pet. App. 32a). On October 22, 2013, Justice Kennedy extended the time within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to and including December 6, 2013, and the petition was filed on that date. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1). (1) 2 STATEMENT 1. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., provides that aliens who are “present in the United States without being admitted or paroled” into the country are inadmissible and may be removed from the United States. 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), 1229a. An inadmissible alien may petition the Attorney General for cancellation of removal—a form of discre- tionary relief. See 8 U.S.C. 1229b. However, pursu- ant to Section 1229b(b)(1)(C), an alien is ineligible for cancellation of removal if the alien has been convicted of an offense under Section 1227(a)(2), including a “violation of * * * any law or regulation of a State * * * relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of title 21),” other than an offense in- volving the possession of a small quantity of marijua- na for personal use, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). An alien has the burden of proving eligibility for cancellation of removal by a preponderance of the evidence. 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(4); 8 C.F.R. 1240.8(d). 2. Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. Pet. App. 5a. He entered the United States without being legally admitted or paroled into the country. Adminis- trative Record (A.R.) 356. Subsequently, petitioner was arrested and pleaded guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of Nevada Revised Statute Annotated § 453.566 (LexisNexis 2005), after a glass pipe containing burnt residue was found in his car. Pet. App. 5a; A.R. 347. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) be- gan removal proceedings, charging that petitioner was removable because he was an alien illegally present in the United States without having been admitted or 3 paroled into the country. A.R. 356-357. Petitioner conceded that he was removable on this ground, but requested cancellation of removal. A.R. 81-82; Pet. App. 5a. An immigration judge denied that relief, determining that petitioner was ineligible for can- cellation of removal because petitioner’s drug- paraphernalia conviction was an offense relating to a controlled substance. Pet. App. 5a. Petitioner appealed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. Pet. App. 4a-10a. The BIA first noted that under both Ninth Circuit and BIA precedent, petitioner’s conviction for possessing drug paraphernalia qualified as a conviction for violating a state law “relating to a controlled substance (as de- fined in section 802 of Title 21).” Id. at 5a-8a (citing Luu-Le v. INS, 224 F.3d 911, 915 (9th Cir. 2000); In re Martinez Espinoza, 25 I. & N. Dec. 118 (B.I.A. 2009)). In particular, the BIA had long treated statutes that prohibit “conduct associated with the drug trade in general” as statutes “relating to” federally controlled substances. Id. at 8a. Thus, it concluded, “drug para- phernalia [does] not need to be tied to a specific, fed- erally controlled substance before a conviction for possession or use of drug paraphernalia could qualify as a conviction for an offense relating to a controlled substance.” Ibid. Second, the BIA concluded that even if parapher- nalia convictions did not uniformly trigger ineligibility for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(C), petitioner had failed to meet his bur- den of establishing