Dhanota v. Holder

373 F. App'x 749

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 7, 2010
• Docket: 05-75978
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Baljit Singh Dhanota seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals that held that his state felony conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell, in violation of California Health and Safety Code § 11378, was a “drug trafficking crime” which constitutes an “aggravated felony” under federal law, rendering him statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. Dhanota argues that “drug trafficking crime,” as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B), requires the use of a firearm and thus the state criminal statute, which has no such element, is broader than the federal statute. He relies in particular on the reference in § 1101(a)(43)(B) to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) as a whole, arguing that because § 1101(a)(43)(B) fails to contain a more precise reference to § 924(c)(2), Congress intended to incorporate all subsections of § 924(c) in the definition of “drug trafficking crime.” We rejected exactly this argument in our recent decision in Lopez-Jacuinde v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir.2010).

PETITION DENIED.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.