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

jurisdictionstatuteimmigration law
jurisdictionstatuteregulationpiracy

Related Cases

Bahar v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Soto-Hernandez v. Holder
View Case »
Asfour v. Napolitano
View Case »
Soberanes v. Comfort
View Case »
Beslic v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Bermudez v. Holder

Facts

Romualdo Cabay Bermudez, a native and citizen of the Philippines, was admitted to the United States in 1973. He was convicted on June 9, 2006, for the offense of Prohibited Acts Related to Drug Paraphernalia under Hawaii law, specifically for possessing a pipe and/or packets used with methamphetamine. Following this conviction, the government charged him with being removable under U.S. immigration law due to his drug-related offense.

Petitioner is a native and citizen of the Philippines. He was admitted to the United States in 1973. On June 9, 2006, Petitioner was convicted of the offense of Prohibited Acts Related to Drug Paraphernalia, in violation of section 329-43.5(a) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes.

Issue

Whether Bermudez's conviction for possessing drug paraphernalia constitutes a violation of a law relating to a controlled substance, thereby affecting the court's jurisdiction over his petition for review.

Whether a particular conviction is a deportable offense is a question of law, which we likewise review de novo.

Rule

The court reviews de novo whether a particular conviction is a deportable offense under immigration law, specifically under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), which states that any alien convicted of a violation of any law relating to a controlled substance is deportable.

Any alien who at any time after admission has been convicted of a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance . . . is deportable.

Analysis

The court compared Bermudez's conviction under Hawaii law to a similar Arizona statute that had previously been determined to relate to controlled substances. The court found that the language of the Hawaii statute was materially identical to the Arizona statute, which had been held to criminalize behavior involving the production or use of drugs. Therefore, the court concluded that Bermudez's conviction was indeed a violation of a law relating to a controlled substance, affirming the BIA's lack of jurisdiction over the petition for review.

Here, Petitioner was convicted for possessing drug paraphernalia in violation of section 329-43.5(a) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. The text of that statute is materially identical to the Arizona statute at issue in Luu-Le. Thus, we hold that Petitioner was convicted for a violation of a law 'relating to a controlled substance.'

Conclusion

The court dismissed Bermudez's petition for review, affirming the BIA's decision that it lacked jurisdiction due to his conviction being a controlled substance offense.

PETITION DISMISSED.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the BIA's determination that Bermudez's conviction was a violation of a law relating to a controlled substance, thus affirming the lack of jurisdiction over the petition.

The court dismissed the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.

You must be