Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statuteappealpleaguilty plea
statuteplearegulation

Related Cases

Londono-Gonzalez v. Barr
View Case »
United States v. Ahumada-Aguilar
View Case »
Landin-Molina v. Holder
View Case »
Guzman-Garcia v. Garland
View Case »
La Hacienda Mexican Caf�U.S. v.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Bannister v. Barr

Facts

Petitioners Elizabeth Bannister and Miguel Fasio, both lawful permanent residents, were convicted in Minnesota state court for fifth-degree possession of a controlled substance, specifically methamphetamine. Following their convictions, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against them, asserting that they were removable under 237(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Immigration Judge initially found that the statute was overbroad and indivisible, but the Board of Immigration Appeals later determined it was divisible and that the petitioners' specific convictions qualified as removable offenses.

Petitioners are lawful permanent residents who were convicted of fifth-degree possession of a controlled substance in Minnesota state court. The charging documents in their criminal cases alleged they had possessed methamphetamine. Bannister pleaded guilty in two separate cases to violating Minn. Stat. 152.025, subd. 2(a)(1) (2015) . Fasio pleaded guilty to violating Minn. Stat. 152.025, subd. 2(b)(1) (2015) , which is similar to subdivision (a)(1) , but provides heightened penalties for a 'subsequent controlled substance conviction.'

Issue

Whether a violation of Minnesota's fifth-degree possession statute constitutes a removable offense under 237(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Whether a violation of a state statute qualifies as a removable offense under INA 237(a)(2)(B)(i) is a question of law we review de novo.

Rule

A noncitizen is subject to removal if convicted of violating any law relating to a controlled substance, and the court employs the categorical approach to determine if a state conviction qualifies as a removable offense.

That section provides that a noncitizen is subject to removal if, 'at any time after admission,' he or she has been convicted of violating 'any law or regulation of a State . . . relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of Title 21 ) . . . .' 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(I).

Analysis

The court applied the modified categorical approach to determine that the identity of the specific controlled substance is an element of the offense under Minnesota's fifth-degree possession statute. The Board of Immigration Appeals found that the petitioners had pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine, which is a federally controlled substance, thus affirming their removability.

Because the Minnesota fifth-degree possession statute is divisible, we apply the modified categorical approach to 'determine, based on a limited class of judicial records,' the crime of which Petitioners were convicted and whether their 'offense of conviction fits within the removable offense.' Id. at 969 (cleaned up). Bannister pleaded guilty in two separate state-court proceedings. Her plea petitions from both cases show she pleaded guilty to the charge in the complaint: fifth degree possession of a controlled substance, specifically methamphetamine.

Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit denied the petitions for review, concluding that the petitioners were removable due to their guilty pleas for possessing methamphetamine in violation of Minnesota's fifth-degree possession statute.

Petitioners are removable because they pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine in violation of Minnesota's fifth-degree possession statute. See Rendon , 952 F.3d at 969 . We therefore deny their petitions for review.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the Board of Immigration Appeals' determination that the petitioners' convictions rendered them removable under federal law.

The government argues that because methamphetamine is a controlled substance under federal law, Petitioners' convictions qualify as removable offenses.

You must be