Docket Entries Since Last Update
NOTE: This court's RSS feed does not list MOTION entries, so Bloomberg Law cannot detect them and thus they will not be listed here. However, motions will be included if you update the docket.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] Julian Lucien Andre, Jon Dean, Debra Pollock, McDermott Will & Emery, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Pedro Madrigal-Barcenas, pro se.
OIL, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Yedidya Cohen, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A088-914-486.
Before: NOONAN, TASHIMA, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Pedro Madrigal-Barcenas petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of his application for cancellation of removal on account of his conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of section 453.566 of the Nevada Revised Statutes. Reviewing de novo, Ruiz-Vidal v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1072, 1076 n. 2 (9th Cir.2007), we deny the petition.
1. A nonpermanent resident may be eligible for cancellation of removal only if he "has not been convicted of an offense under [8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)]." 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C). The offenses listed under § 1182(a)(2) include violations of "any law . . . relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of Title 21)." 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). A state statute that criminalizes possession of paraphernalia for use with drugs may be a law "relating to a controlled substance" for these purposes. Minh Due Luu-Le v. INS, 224 F.3d 911, 916 (9th Cir.2000).
2. The facts of this case are analogous to those in previous decisions regarding other states' drug paraphernalia statutes: United States v. Oseguera-Madrigal, 700 F.3d 1196, 1199-200 (9th Cir.2012); Bermudez v. Holder, 586 F.3d 1167, 1168-69 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam); Estrada v. Holder, 560 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir.2009); and Luu-Le, 224 F.3d at 915-16. Those cases require denial of the petition because [*716] Nevada's drug-paraphernalia statute is materially identical to the statutes that we considered there.
3. Because the waiver to inadmissibility under § 1182(h) does not affect eligibility for cancellation, In re Bustamante, 25 I. & N. Dec. 564, 567 (B.I.A.2011), interpretations of that provision, e.g., In re Espinoza, 25 I. & N. Dec. 118, 123-26 (B.I.A. 2009), and of the "personal use" exception to deportability under § 1227, e.g., In re Davey, 26 I. & N. Dec. 37, 38-41 (B.I.A. 2012), are not relevant here.