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

statuteappealliens
statuteappealliensjury instructions

Related Cases

Renteria-Ledesma v. Holder
View Case »
Landgraf v. USI Film Products
View Case »
Van Dinh v. Reno
View Case »
Ixcuna-Garcia v. Garland
View Case »
Lee v. Gonzales
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Tejeda v. Barr

Facts

Gustavo Tejeda was convicted under California law for being under the influence of a controlled substance, specifically amphetamines, in violation of Cal. Health & Safety Code 11550(a). The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal from an Immigration Judge's decision that found him removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) due to this conviction. The case centered on whether the California statute was divisible and whether it aligned with federal definitions of controlled substances.

In the language of the documents [**4] relating to Tejeda's conviction, he was convicted under California law of being under the influence of a controlled substanceamphetaminesin violation of California Health and Safety Code 11550(a).

Issue

The primary issue in this case is whether Section 11550(a) is 'divisible' under Descamps v. United States and United States v. Martinez-Lopez.

The primary issue in this case is whether Section 11550(a) is 'divisible' under Descamps v. United States , 570 U.S. 254, 133 S. Ct. 2276, 186 L. Ed. 2d 438 (2013) , and United States v. Martinez-Lopez , 864 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc).

Rule

The federal statute provides for removal of aliens deportable because of a conviction of a violation of any state law 'relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of Title 21).'

The federal statute [**5] provides for removal of aliens deportable because of a conviction of a violation of any state law '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 Tejeda's conviction under Section 11550(a) was indeed divisible. It referenced previous cases, including Coronado v. Holder and Martinez-Lopez, to establish that the California statute incorporates controlled substances from state schedules, which are broader than the federal list. The court concluded that the elements of Tejeda's offense were satisfied under federal law.

Application of these two cases, Coronado and Martinez-Lopez , requires us to treat the controlled-substance requirement in Section 11550(a) as divisible. The reasoning in Martinez-Lopez squarely applies. Section 11550(a) incorporates controlled substances from the state schedules, the state law 'separate crimes' holding cited by Martinez-Lopez applies, and the state pattern jury instructions for Section 11550(a) require the jury to agree on the particular substance.

Conclusion

The court denied the Petition for Review, affirming that Tejeda's conviction under California law served as a valid basis for his deportability under federal law.

Therefore, the Petition for Review is DENIED.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, confirming that Tejeda's conviction was a valid ground for removal.

The government prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, confirming that Tejeda's conviction was a valid ground for removal.

You must be