• Hours & Info

    (562) 495-0554
    M-F: 8:00am - 6:00 p.m.
    Sat: 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
  • Social

  • Past Blog Posts

BIA Dismisses Appeal and Issues Decision on “Realistic Probability”

The BIA found that where an individual has been convicted of violating a state drug statute that includes a controlled substance that is not on the federal controlled substances schedules, the individual must establish a realistic probability that the state would actually apply the language of the statute to prosecute conduct involving that substance in order to avoid the immigration consequences of such a conviction.

Court Finds Petitioner’s Illinois Conviction for Possessing Between 30 and 500 Grams of Marijuana Is Not an Aggravated Felony

The Seventh Circuit held that the BIA misapplied the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Moncrieffe v. Holder when it characterized the petitioner’s conviction under ILCS §550/5(d) for possessing more than 30 but not more than 500 grams of marijuana as an aggravated felony, finding that nothing in Moncrieffe supports the conclusion that the possession of a little more than 30 grams of marijuana can never be punished as a federal misdemeanor. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and remanded to give the BIA the opportunity to decide whether to exercise its discretion to grant cancellation of removal.

Not all Drug paraphernalia crimes make you deportable

In light of Mellouli v. Lynch, the Ninth Circuit found that the Nevada statute under which the petitioner was convicted for misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia was overbroad, because it penalizes possession of paraphernalia in connection with substances not controlled under federal law. Thus, the court held that the petitioner was not categorically barred from seeking cancellation of removal, and remanded for the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to consider, in the first instance, the potential application of the modified categorical approach, as well as the merits of the petitioner’s cancellation of removal application.

What is a ‘controlled substance’ for removal purposes

Supreme Court Holds That Only Substances Defined as “Controlled” Under §802 Trigger Removal

The Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit, finding that INA §237(a)(2)(B)(i) triggers removal only when the government can prove a connection between an element of an immigrant’s drug conviction and a “controlled substance” as defined in 21 USC §802.

%d bloggers like this: