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

appeal
appeal

Related Cases

Ahmad v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Franco-Casasola v. Holder
View Case »
Pavlova v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Zambrano v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Ragasa v. Holder

Facts

Crisanto Ragasa, born in the Philippines, immigrated to the U.S. at age fourteen and was adopted by his uncle and aunt, both U.S. citizens. In 2008, he was convicted in Hawai'i for 'Attempted Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the First Degree.' Following this conviction, the government initiated removal proceedings against him, claiming he was a removable alien due to his drug-related conviction. The immigration judge ordered his removal, which was upheld by the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Crisanto Ragasa was born in the Philippines in 1966 to two married Filipino citizens (his 'biological parents'). At the age of fourteen, he immigrated to the United States and was adopted by his uncle and aunt (his 'adoptive parents'), both naturalized U.S. citizens. Years later in 2008, Ragasa was convicted in Hawai'i state court for 'Attempted Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the First Degree,' in violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. 705-500(1)(b), 712-1241(1)(b)(ii). The government initiated immigration proceedings against Ragasa, a lawful permanent resident, charging him as a removable alien because of his drug-related conviction. The immigration judge ('IJ') ordered Ragasa removed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals ('BIA') dismissed his appeal from the IJ's removal order and denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Ragasa timely petitions for review of the BIA's decision.

Issue

Did the Board of Immigration Appeals err in dismissing Ragasa's application for cancellation of removal based on his state conviction?

Did the Board of Immigration Appeals err in dismissing Ragasa's application for cancellation of removal based on his state conviction?

Rule

To establish removability under Section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) of the INA, the government must prove that the drug underlying the state conviction is covered by the federal Controlled Substances Act.

To establish removability under Section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) of the INA, the government must prove that the drug underlying the state conviction is covered by the federal Controlled Substances Act.

Analysis

The court applied the categorical approach to determine whether Ragasa's state conviction rendered him removable. It found that his conviction involved substances not covered by the Controlled Substances Act, specifically benzylfentanyl and thenylfentanyl. Since the government failed to prove that Ragasa's conviction involved a controlled substance listed in the CSA, he was not removable as charged.

The court applied the categorical approach to determine whether Ragasa's state conviction rendered him removable. It found that his conviction involved substances not covered by the Controlled Substances Act, specifically benzylfentanyl and thenylfentanyl. Since the government failed to prove that Ragasa's conviction involved a controlled substance listed in the CSA, he was not removable as charged.

Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit granted Ragasa's petition for review, vacating the order of removal.

The Ninth Circuit granted Ragasa's petition for review, vacating the order of removal.

Who won?

Crisanto Ragasa prevailed in the case because the court determined that his state conviction did not constitute a removable offense under federal law.

Crisanto Ragasa prevailed in the case because the court determined that his state conviction did not constitute a removable offense under federal law.

You must be