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

statuteappealmotionfelonydue process
statuteappealmotionfelonydue process

Related Cases

Ovalles v. Holder
View Case »
Ovalles v. Holder
View Case »
Dos Santos v. Gonzales
View Case »
Yeghiazaryan v. Gonzales
View Case »
Murillo-Espinoza v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Lopez-Jacuinde v. Holder

Facts

On February 10, 2005, Lopez-Jacuinde, a citizen of Mexico, was convicted of the offense of possession of pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine or any of its analogs in violation of California Health and Safety Code 11383(c)(1). He was served with a notice to appear for removal proceedings that alleged he had committed an aggravated felony. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Lopez-Jacuinde's motion to strike and ordered him removed from the United States. The BIA dismissed Lopez-Jacuinde's petition for review and agreed with the IJ that Lopez-Jacuinde had been convicted of an aggravated felony.

On February 10, 2005, Lopez-Jacuinde, a citizen of Mexico, was convicted of the offense of possession of pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine or any of its analogs in violation of California Health and Safety Code 11383(c)(1). He was served with a notice to appear for removal proceedings that alleged he had committed an aggravated felony. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Lopez-Jacuinde's motion to strike and ordered him removed from the United States. The BIA dismissed Lopez-Jacuinde's petition for review and agreed with the IJ that Lopez-Jacuinde had been convicted of an aggravated felony.

Issue

Whether Lopez-Jacuinde's conviction for possession of pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine constitutes an aggravated felony under federal law.

Whether Lopez-Jacuinde's conviction for possession of pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine constitutes an aggravated felony under federal law.

Rule

An 'aggravated felony' includes 'illicit trafficking in a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), including a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 924(c) of title 18, United States Code).' The Ninth Circuit has interpreted this text as providing two analytic routes through which a state drug felony may be classified as an aggravated felony.

An 'aggravated felony' includes 'illicit trafficking in a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), including a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 924(c) of title 18, United States Code).' The Ninth Circuit has interpreted this text as providing two analytic routes through which a state drug felony may be classified as an aggravated felony.

Analysis

The court determined that the BIA correctly concluded that a state conviction for possession of pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine does not require the use of a firearm to constitute an aggravated felony. The court explained that the definition of 'drug trafficking crime' in 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(2) does not include a firearm element, and thus, the BIA's determination that Lopez-Jacuinde's conviction was an aggravated felony was valid.

The court determined that the BIA correctly concluded that a state conviction for possession of pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine does not require the use of a firearm to constitute an aggravated felony. The court explained that the definition of 'drug trafficking crime' in 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(2) does not include a firearm element, and thus, the BIA's determination that Lopez-Jacuinde's conviction was an aggravated felony was valid.

Conclusion

The petition was denied as the BIA correctly applied the relevant statutes, and there was no due process violation.

The petition was denied as the BIA correctly applied the relevant statutes, and there was no due process violation.

Who won?

The Board of Immigration Appeals prevailed in the case, as the court upheld its determination that Lopez-Jacuinde's conviction constituted an aggravated felony.

The Board of Immigration Appeals prevailed in the case, as the court upheld its determination that Lopez-Jacuinde's conviction constituted an aggravated felony.

You must be