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

liabilityhearingfelonydeportation
liabilityhearingfelonydeportation

Related Cases

Hernandez-Vivas v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Antonio-Cruz v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Schellong v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Remileh; U.S. v.
View Case »
Hamdi ex rel.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Reveles-Espinoza; U.S. v.

Facts

Reveles-Espinoza was born in Mexico and was admitted to the United States from Mexico as an immigrant in 1965. He was convicted in Los Angeles County Superior Court of felony cultivation of marijuana under California Health and Safety Code 11358 in August 1999. In 2003, he was notified to appear before an immigration judge (IJ) based on the government's contention that he was deportable because of conviction for a 'controlled substance offense.' At the hearing, Reveles-Espinoza conceded removability because of his conviction for a 'drug offense.' The IJ ruled that Reveles-Espinoza would have been able to apply for a waiver if he had only the heroin and noise convictions, but because his most recent conviction for cultivation of marijuana was an aggravated felony, he was not eligible for any relief.

Reveles-Espinoza was born in Mexico and was admitted to the United States from Mexico as an immigrant in 1965. He was convicted in Los Angeles County Superior Court of felony cultivation of marijuana under California Health and Safety Code 11358 in August 1999. In 2003, he was notified to appear before an immigration judge (IJ) based on the government's contention that he was deportable because of conviction for a 'controlled substance offense.' At the hearing, Reveles-Espinoza conceded removability because of his conviction for a 'drug offense.' The IJ ruled that Reveles-Espinoza would have been able to apply for a waiver if he had only the heroin and noise convictions, but because his most recent conviction for cultivation of marijuana was an aggravated felony, he was not eligible for any relief.

Issue

Whether Reveles-Espinoza's conviction under California Health and Safety Code 11358 constitutes an aggravated felony under federal law, thus making him ineligible for cancellation of removal.

Whether Reveles-Espinoza's conviction under California Health and Safety Code 11358 constitutes an aggravated felony under federal law, thus making him ineligible for cancellation of removal.

Rule

'Aggravated felony' means . . . illicit trafficking in a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of Title 21), including a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 924(c) of Title 18).

'Aggravated felony' means . . . illicit trafficking in a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of Title 21), including a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 924(c) of Title 18).

Analysis

The court concluded that the state offense for which Reveles-Espinoza was convicted categorically falls within the generic definition of a 'drug trafficking crime' and thus constitutes an 'aggravated felony' within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1229b. The court noted that the ordinary meaning of the terms 'production' and 'processing of a drug' includes the act of drying, which is part of the activities he admitted to under 11358. Therefore, even if he was convicted under California's theory of aiding and abetting liability, he is liable under federal as well as state law.

The court concluded that the state offense for which Reveles-Espinoza was convicted categorically falls within the generic definition of a 'drug trafficking crime' and thus constitutes an 'aggravated felony' within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1229b. The court noted that the ordinary meaning of the terms 'production' and 'processing of a drug' includes the act of drying, which is part of the activities he admitted to under 11358. Therefore, even if he was convicted under California's theory of aiding and abetting liability, he is liable under federal as well as state law.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, concluding that Reveles-Espinoza's conviction was indeed an aggravated felony, making him ineligible for relief from removal.

The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, concluding that Reveles-Espinoza's conviction was indeed an aggravated felony, making him ineligible for relief from removal.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case because the court found that Reveles-Espinoza's conviction for cultivation of marijuana was an aggravated felony, thus validating his deportation.

The United States prevailed in the case because the court found that Reveles-Espinoza's conviction for cultivation of marijuana was an aggravated felony, thus validating his deportation.

You must be