Pedro Madrigal-Barcenas v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Pedro Madrigal-Barcenas v. Eric Holder, Jr.

507 F. App'x 715

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 11, 2013

Docket10-72049

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 507 F. App'x 715 (Pedro Madrigal-Barcenas v. Eric Holder, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pedro Madrigal-Barcenas v. Eric Holder, Jr., 507 F. App'x 715 (9th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

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)(l)(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)(IR. 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 Duc 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 Luur-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.

PETITION DENIED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM *

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)(l)(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)(IR. 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 Duc 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 Luur-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.

PETITION DENIED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

507 F. App'x 715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pedro-madrigal-barcenas-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack