Filed: Aug. 18, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 14-1714 _ EDWARD CECIL WALKER, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATE OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Respondents _ On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Immigration Judge: Honorable Walter Durling (No. A205-135-043) _ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) June 8, 2015 Before: AMBRO and COWEN, Circuit Judges and RESTANI, Judge (Filed: August 18, 2
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 14-1714 _ EDWARD CECIL WALKER, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATE OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Respondents _ On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Immigration Judge: Honorable Walter Durling (No. A205-135-043) _ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) June 8, 2015 Before: AMBRO and COWEN, Circuit Judges and RESTANI, Judge (Filed: August 18, 20..
More
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 14-1714
________________
EDWARD CECIL WALKER,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATE OF AMERICA;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
Respondents
________________
On Petition for Review of a Final Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Immigration Judge: Honorable Walter Durling
(No. A205-135-043)
________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 8, 2015
Before: AMBRO and COWEN, Circuit Judges
and RESTANI, Judge
(Filed: August 18, 2015)
________________
OPINION*
________________
AMBRO, Circuit Judge
Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by
designation.
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
Edward Walker petitions for review of the Department of Homeland Security’s
(“DHS”) Final Administrative Removal Order. Because Walker was wrongly subjected
to summary removal proceedings as if he had been previously convicted of an
“aggravated felony” within the meaning of the immigration laws, we vacate the Order
and remand.
I. Facts
Walker came to the United States on a student visa from Ghana. In May 2013, he
pled guilty in Pennsylvania court to possession with intent to distribute marijuana, a
deportable offense. While he was serving his sentence for that crime, the DHS began
removal proceedings against him. Because the DHS determined that Walker’s marijuana
offense was an “aggravated felony,” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B), his removal proceedings
were summary, and he was not allowed to seek discretionary withholding of removal
from the Attorney General. Walker contested his removal, but a hearing officer affirmed
that he was deportable and issued the Removal Order. Walker petitions for review.
II. Jurisdiction
The DHS issued the Removal Order in August 2013.1 Shortly thereafter, Walker
sought withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Thus, although the August 2013 Order was called
1
A typewritten date at the top of the Removal Order reads May 17, 2013; however,
handwritten dates at the bottom state that it was signed and served on August 8 of that
year. We read the May date as having been typed when the Order was drafted, and we
understand the handwritten dates to correspond to the time when the DHS formally
rendered its decision.
2
“Final,” the pending withholding-of-removal proceedings made it not “final” within the
meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1252, the provision governing our jurisdiction over petitions for
review of immigration decisions by the DHS. See Morales-Izquierdo v. DHS, 600 F.3d
1076, 1082–83 (9th Cir. 2010) (removal order not final when “inextricably linked” with
pending proceedings for relief from the order). The withholding and CAT proceedings
terminated in February 2014, and Walker filed a petition for review less than 30 days
later, thus giving us jurisdiction.
The Government argues we lack jurisdiction because the DHS has “cancelled”
Walker’s Removal Order pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b). However, this is not possible,
as neither § 1228(b) nor any other provision of law that the Government cites or of which
we are aware allows for cancellation of an order. Therefore, as far as we are concerned,
the Removal Order still exists, and our jurisdiction is intact for review of issues of law
under § 1252(a)(2)(D). To the extent that the Government has indicated a desire not to
enforce that Order against Walker, that may be welcome news to him. But so far as we
can tell, the document remains legally operative, and the current version of the
Government’s enforcement priorities is no obstacle to our review.2
2
The Government has made several attempts to avoid review of Walker’s Removal
Order. First, in March 2014, it moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction on the
ground that Walker had failed to exhaust administrative remedies. In November 2014,
the Government moved to remand the case to DHS to decide the legal issues before us in
the first instance. We set the case for a full briefing schedule. In the Government’s
merits brief, it withdrew the jurisdictional argument (the remedies the Government had
argued Walker should have exhausted were not in fact available to him), but reiterated its
request for a remand. When we directed the Government to respond to Walker’s merits
argument, it filed a letter response arguing again that a remand was appropriate and
making only the barest pretense of addressing the merits. Next, the Government
3
III. Merits
The DHS ordered Walker removed because he was convicted of possession with
intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 35 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 780-113(a)(30). It
found that this crime qualified as an “aggravated felony” under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(43)(B). The finding had serious consequences: Walker was “conclusively
presumed to be deportable” under 8 U.S.C. § 1228(c), and he was not eligible for
discretionary relief from removal, id. § 1228(b)(5). Thus, it is important to determine
whether Walker’s prior conviction was an “aggravated felony” within the meaning of the
immigration laws.
Under the definitions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, “illicit trafficking in
a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of Title 21)” is an aggravated felony. 8
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B). Under 21 U.S.C. § 802(6), a controlled substance “means a
drug . . . included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of this subchapter.” Marijuana
is a Schedule I drug. 21 C.F.R. § 1308.11(d)(23); see also 21 U.S.C. § 811(a)
(authorizing Attorney General to place drugs on schedules).
But not all illicit trafficking in marijuana is an aggravated felony. Instead, the
Supreme Court has read the statute to provide that “a noncitizen’s conviction of an
offense that the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) makes punishable by more than one
year’s imprisonment will be counted as an aggravated felony for immigration purposes.
purported to “cancel” Walker’s Order, something it has done before (without success).
See Rodriguez-Celaya v. Attorney Gen., 597 F. App’x 79, 81 (3d Cir. 2015). The
apparent reason for the Government’s coyness is that, as discussed below, it is plain that
Walker should prevail on the merits.
4
A conviction under either state or federal law may qualify, but a state offense constitutes
a felony punishable under the [CSA] only if it proscribes conduct punishable as a felony
under that federal law.” Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678, 1683 (2013) (internal
quotation marks omitted). The question then becomes how we decide whether a
particular state offense is a federal felony.
The answer is that a state drug offense qualifies as an aggravated felony if the state
offense necessarily proscribes conduct punishable as a felony under the CSA (this is
known as the “categorical approach” because we do not inquire into the actual conduct of
a particular crime, merely into the elements of the relevant state and federal violations).
When a state law is broader than the CSA and punishes some conduct that is a federal
felony and other conduct that is not, we apply what has come to be known as the
“modified categorical approach,” and we may look to “the charging document and jury
instructions, or in the case of a guilty plea, the plea agreement, plea colloquy, or some
comparable judicial record of the factual basis for the plea” to determine what part of the
statute provided the legal basis for the state conviction. Id. at 1684. Further, in cases
where the state offense criminalizes more conduct than the CSA, “we must presume that
the conviction rested upon [nothing] more than the least of th[e] acts criminalized, and
then determine whether even those acts are encompassed by the generic federal offense.”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (alterations in original). Crucially here, when a
defendant pleads guilty in Pennsylvania, “we may not look to factual assertions in the
judgment of sentence” because the defendant does not necessarily admit those facts, and
5
thus it is not clear that he pled guilty to the crime to which the assertions correspond.
Evanson v. Attorney Gen., 550 F.3d 284, 293 (3d Cir. 2008).
In this case, the DHS considered a docket sheet and a sentence order from the state
court where Walker was convicted. The docket sheet confirmed that Walker was
convicted of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, but only the sentence order
(called a judgment of sentence in Evanson) stated that Walker’s offense involved 187
grams of marijuana. Although that amount is punishable by over a year’s incarceration
under the CSA, cf. Catwell v. Attorney Gen., 623 F.3d 199, 209 (3d Cir. 2010), that
Walker intended to distribute 187 grams is a factual finding we may not consider under
the modified categorical approach. Given the record before us, we may look only to 35
Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann § 780-113(a)(30) and the CSA to determine if the state statute
“necessarily proscribe[s] conduct that is an offense under the CSA,” and whether “the
CSA . . . necessarily prescribe[s] felony punishment for that conduct.”
Moncrieffe, 133
S. Ct. at 1685 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Pennsylvania statute forbids “the manufacture, delivery, or possession with
intent to manufacture or deliver, a controlled substance by a person not registered under
this act.” 35 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 780-113(a)(30). Because it does not differentiate
prohibited conduct in terms of amount or reasons for possessing, the statute covers
“distributing a small amount of marihuana for no remuneration,” which under the CSA is
a misdemeanor and not a felony. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(4) & 844(a). The Government
suggests, though, that because Pennsylvania has a different statute that punishes
possession with intent to distribute a small amount of marijuana for no remuneration, see
6
35 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 780-113(a)(31), and because Walker was not convicted under
that section, he must not have been convicted of distributing a small amount of marijuana
for no remuneration.
Attractive as the Government’s argument sounds, it wilts on inspection. We have
held more than once that “distributing a small amount of marijuana for no remuneration
could be prosecuted under” 35 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 780-113(a)(30). Evanson, 550 F.3d
at 289; see also Jeune v. Attorney Gen.,
476 F.3d 199, 205 (3d Cir. 2007). Moreover, as
Walker correctly argues in his opening brief (making a point to which the Government
does not meaningfully respond), Pennsylvania’s Superior Court has affirmed a conviction
of possession of marijuana under 35 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 780-113(a)(16)—a felony—
when the amount was small enough that the defendant could have been charged under
§ 780-113(a)(31), a misdemeanor covering possession of less than thirty grams of
marijuana. The Superior Court reasoned that “[t]here is nothing in The Controlled
Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act which requires that an accused be prosecuted
under any particular subsection of the Act based upon the amount of controlled
substances he or she is alleged to possess. Rather, an accused can be charged with, and
prosecuted for, any offense which the Commonwealth thinks it can prove.” Com. v.
Pagan,
461 A.2d 321, 322 n.1 (Pa. Super. 1983). Just so here. It is thus “a realistic
probability, not a theoretical possibility, that the State would apply [35 Pa. Cons. Stat.
Ann. § 780-113(a)(30)] to conduct that falls outside” the definition of an aggravated
felony.
Moncrieffe, 133 S. Ct. at 1685. As such, we cannot say that Walker was
convicted of an aggravated felony, and we must grant the petition for review.
7
* * * * *
Under the modified categorical approach, Walker has not been convicted of an
aggravated felony. We thus vacate the order of removal.
8
