Miguel Garcia Olvera, A091 983 344 (BIA March 25, 2015)

8/9/2019 Miguel Garcia Olvera, A091 983 344 (BIA March 25, 2015)

1/14

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Oce r Immgraton Revew

Boad o Immigration AppealsOce ofhe Cerk

5107 leesburg Pike. Sute 2000Fas Chuch, Vgina 20530

Michael Christian Urbina-Pabon, EsquireThe Urbina Law Firm, LLC

HS/ICE Oice of Chief Counsel SC146 CCA Road, POBox 248

P.O BOX 70 Lumpkin, GA 31815 Acwoh, GA 30101

Name: GARCA OLVERA, MIGUEL A 091983-344

Dat e of this notice 3/25/2015

closed s a copy of the Board's decson ad order n e above-rerenced case.

close

Pl Mb:Gree, Ane J.Pauley RogerGeer Joa B

Sncee,

D ctDonna CarrCef Cerk

: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visitwww.irac.net/unpublished/index

Cite as: Miguel Garcia Olvera, A091 983 344 (BIA March 25, 2015)


2/14

GARCIA OLVERA MIGUEL A091-983-344STEWART DETENTION CENTER146 CCA ROADP.O BOX 248LUMPKIN GA 3185

Name: GARCIA OLVERA MIGUEL

U.S Dpn of Juic

xecutive Oce r Immigration Review

Board o Immigrtion AppelsOce ofthe Clerk

5107 Leesburg Pike. Sute 200Falls Chuc, Vgna 2053

HS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - SC146 CCA Road, P.OBox 248Lumpkin, GA 31815

A 091-983-344

Date o this notice: 3 25 2015

Eclosed is a copy of the Board's decision i the aove-rereced case. Ths copy is eingprovided to you as a cotesy Your attorey o repesentative has een seved with thisdecision psuant to 8 CF § 1292(a) the attaced decisio oders tat you eemoved o te United States or afrms an Immigration Judges decision oderng tat youe removed, any petitio r eview of the attached decisio must be led wit and eceivedby the appoprate cout of appeals with 30 days of te date of te decision

nclosure

Pl MbGeer, Ane J.Pauley RogeGeer Joa B

Siceely

Dona CarCief Clerk

serteam:



3/14

.

US prmn of JsExeutive Oce g Reve

F Chch Vg 3

ie A091 983 34 upkin, GA

I re: MIGUEL GARCIA OVER

REOVL PRCEEDINGS

APE

e Bd g

Date

MAR 2 5 201

N BEHA F ESPONDENT: chael Cst rnaPabo Esqure

N BEHALF F DHS ayabb Assstt Cef Conse

HARGE:

Notce Sec 23(a(2(A(ii, &N Ac 8 US§ 1227(a(2(A(ii)] Cvcted of aggravated oy

PPLCTO Termiation

e respondent appeals om Immigration uge's Deceme 3, 2014, ecision oreighim removed om the United Sates The Depent of Homeld Secrty (DHS" opposes e appeal The appea wl e sustned the removal proceedgs will be teated

The respoent s a native and citzen of Meco an a lawl eanet resiet of theted Sates I 1999 he resodent was convcte i No ola o ossessg mjuanawith ntent to macure, sell, or deve, a lony voao of seco 90-9()( of the Noh Colia Geeral Statutes (herenaer § 909(a)()" which he was setenced to inetermnate e of mpsonme of 4-6 monts The uesto o appeal is whether hatconvction reers e respodent removae unde secto 237(a(2(A(iii of he mmigraion Natonaity Act, 8 USC § 1227(a(2(A(iii, as ale convicted of gravatedlony" Upon e novo eview, we conclde at it oes ot

Te tem aggravate oy is ee to icle ilcit acing in a conrolledsustce (as dee i sectio 802 of itle 21, inclig a ug tafcig crime (as dee

secion 92(c of Title 18)" Secto 101(a(43(B of the Act, 8 SC § 1101(a(3)(B e pe illici tracig" refers to y state, ea, or quaied regn lony convictovi law a or a" a ce ssc e y eera lawae L-G-H, 26 &N Dec 365, 36 A 2014 (ctations ome Howeve onseat does ot ivolve aw tang or ealig" withi the meaig of the ilct acigcocept may noeeless quali as a aggavated lony f t is a g acng crme uer18 SC § 92(c); ha s, a loy shale uder he Federa Corolled Sstnces Act(CSA", 21 USC § 802 et se A sate g oense uaies as a drg acing crmeoly if it coespons categoicaly to oese pshae y a mm e ofmpsomet of more th 1 ye der the CA nciee v Holder 133 S Ct 1678 1683(2013



4/14

1

n 199, when the respondent coitted his oense and sustained his coniction,§ -5a)) proided that it is awl r any person ... [to manacre, sel or deliver, or possess ith intent to manucture, sell or deliver, a controlled sstance." Accordin to te Noh Colina Supreme Co § -5a)) estalishes ee distinct oenses

"(I) manucre o a conoled sustance, ) ansr o a controled sstance y sale ordeiery, and ) possession with intent to muctre, sel or deliver a conolled sustance."State v Me 95 S.E.d 1, 16 .C. 1990). A sae" is dened as a ansr of poperyr a specied price payale in money" hi a deliey is the actua sic] constctive, orattempted anser om one person to anor o a controed sstace[] Id. at , 95S.E.d at 17 citations and qotations omitted).

n 19, ioations o§ -95a)) carried dierent maximm sentences dependin upon eidentty o the sstce inolved and e nate of e nderlyin oense conduct. A ioationof § 90-5(a) inolvin a remneratie sale" o majan a schedule I controledsustance nder Norh Coina law) was pnishae as a class H lony while a iolation

inolving manucte o non-remnerative deliey" o mjuana was pnishale as a class Iony, unless he iolation nvoled the trsr o less than 5 s o marija r noremneraon, in whch case it was not to e eated as a delive at all. N.C. en. Stat.

§ 9-5)) 1). Finaly, oenses inolin the mctre, sale, deivery, or possessionof more than 10 ponds of mija were chareale as discrete oenses under § 9-5h) andwere pnished more seerey than violations of§ 0-5a)).

To determine heer a iolation of § 0-95a)() ies as a categorical agavatedlony nder section 11(a))B), e ask hether the minimum condct" that has a ealistic proaility o ein sccessll prosecuted nder he statte coresponds to te illicit tackin" or d tacking crime" denitions. See ncie v Hde sp at 164-5

Te minimm conduct pnishale under§ -5a) is possession of 5 rams o mijana withintent to deier" withot remuneration. The Immiration udge und that § 0-5a))denes a categocal g acking crime" under 18 .S.C. 9c) ecase possession o5 gs o mjua wi the intent to delier coresponds to conduct puishale y p to5 years in prison under ..C. §§ 41(a)) ad 1)()(D). We espectly disaee.

As the nciee Co determined, and as the Immiation udge acknowleded, possession o a smal ount o maijana r no remneration" is punshale a edermisdemeanor nder 21 U.S.C. § )). In f Cs Rdguez 5 I&N Dec. 6,7 BA ), we noted that the phrase small amount was not statoriy deed utconcded that 0 gams as a sel idepost" r mmigation cases ecause Coness has

employed that quantity troughout the Act as a threshold r identiin which mjuaoenses should gie se to mmiation coseuences and which sould not. Accoding to hmmigation g, 0-gr idpost iscssed n tte t Rdigez as merelyadisory rather dispositive," and thus he elected to invoke No Colina's 5-grameshold instead. We revese.

It is e hat the 0gram teshod descrid i s Rdige s a gidepost ater h inexile sandard. As fedeal cours interpreting 1 C. § 1()() ae econied,



5/14

·

A091 983 344

wheher a quti of ara is sal" an depend upon ontexte grs of aruaa no be a sal aoun" f t is deivered in a prson or o a chd Se e United States v Camichael 1 F3d 561 (4 Cr 1998 (Tabe (uphodng dsict os detenaion tha 156 as of aruana s not a sa ou" under 1 S § 84(b(4 whendsibued n a prson Thus we do no disou e possb hat soe cases a presen

prnpled reasons r depng o Cast Rdigue' 3gra hreshod However thegraion Judge deed no suh prnpled reasons here and thus we dsagree wth hisdecison o rea 5 grs of ariuaa a nonsa aoun

e laguage of§ 90-9(a( leaves open he possibilit ha dendants a be onvictedr possessing 30 gras or less of maruana wh he inten o deiver wihout reeraionTha possibl is no disposiive of e aggravaed on queson however bease heaegoral approah s oneed nt with he mn onduct hat oud eorea be proseued der the stue of onvon b raher wih he ini onduct ha has arealis probabt" of aca beng suess prosecuted erender See ncif e v Hlde supa at 168485 (explaining ha or us on the iniu ondu crinaied

b the state statue is no vitaton o appl legal iagnation o he sae oense hereu be a reas probab no a heoreca possibit a the State woud appl ts state o onduct ha fals outsde he gener dention of a cre (ting nales v DuenasAlvae 549 US 183 193 (07

To demonsae e requsie realsc probab" here he evidene us reect hator Carona acal prosecues defendants der § 9-9(a( r possessing 3 s orless of aruana w nent o delver Accd nci v lde supa a 693; nales v DunasAlvae supa at 193 The responden has caied his burden of proof in that regarbecause in Sate v Blackbun 39 SEd 66 6930 (NC C App 1977 he orh CarolinaCo of Appeas phed a § 9095(a( onvcon in whh e ur nd ha he denda

possessed 4 gras of miuaa wh inten to delver As he inm condu ha has areals probab of beng sucessl proseted nder § 90-95(a( is possession of less h 3 s of aruana w the inent o delver who emeraio ha oensecoesponds categoriall o the deral msdeeor oense desribe in 1 USC § 84(b(4

1 Alhough ncie dd no dopt a tes r evaatng wheer or no a piular amot ofmaaa is sall" wih the eang of 1 SC § 84(b(4 he Supree Cos decision

does provide soe gudce on the quesion Speall n suppo of is deenation thaM. Monriees staute of convitiona Code § 161330(�nopssed hedisbution of sl s" aia he Cur eied upon T Stat 81 Sd386 388 (a pp Ct 003 n whih a dendat was onvicted r possessing 66 gras ofariua wth nen to dsbue See ncief e v Hlde supa at 1686 The ncief eCos deterinaton tha 66 as of ruana s a sal aount s eoncabe wh hegraion Juge's deernaon hat gras is not

3



6/14

A9 98 44

wc in mes tat i is not a caeoical aravated lony Te mmiation Jdgesconay eteinaion wi be revesed

Havng determined at § 90-9(a)() does not dene a categoica aravate feony nersection (a)(4)(B) o te Act we now t to te sepate qestion wehe§ 909(a)() is

divisible" vis-vis he aavate ony denion, sc tat he iation Jde maycondct a moed caeoica" inqy into te espondents convicton ecods to detenewee is paticuar convcion was possession of moe grams o mjana wtintent to deve Accord to te Unted Saes Co o Appeals r e Eevent Crci, inwose jrisdcton ts case ses, a divsible statte s one that sets ot one or moe eemenso te oense n te ateave and in wc at eas one (t no a) o ose aeaveeements (o sets o eement) cateocay matces the eneric" dera oense to wc itmst coesond Unied Sae v Erea 78 F3d 29, 244-4 (t Ci 2) (qotin in Decaps v ned Saes S Ct 2276, 228, 228 (23))

Section 9-9(a)() is prased n e disjnctive, ening tee dscrete oenses

( mancte o a conoled sbstce, (2 ansr o a controled sbstance by sae ordelivery and (3 ossesson wt intent to mctre, sel o deive a contoled ssanceSae v re 39 SE2d 24, 26 (NC 99) Te rst alteatve dened by§ 9-9(a)(),ie, mancrin" a contoed sbstce, may wel coeson categoicay to te aloosfedeal lony oense dened ne 2 SC § 84(a){) However, e secon d tiralteatives dene y§ 909(a)() do not coesond caeocaly to deral elonies becaseo eir otentia aplicabiity to oenes invovin dsibtion (or ossession wit intent todisibe smal onts of marijana r no remneraton Une e circmstances, weconcle ta it wod be peissible r e mmiraion Jde to condt a modiedcateorca nqiry in orde to deteine wic o te ee alteative oenses e respondentwas convcted o comitin As i is ndspted at e esponden was convicte o

possession o maja wi intent to deiver rathe an mactn, sc a moedcategorical nqiry woud not estais e resondent's removabity

Section 909(b(2) also conns anae whic arably makes § 9-9(a){) dvsieSpecically, by establisin a a tsr o less an rams o mijana r no remeatonoes not qal as a devery,"§ 90-9(b)(2) cod be viewe as eecively adn a minmmqaity element" to any marijana delivey" ce that is, a or Carolina rosecor wocares a denan wit vioatn§ 99(a)() on te basis o a non-remnerative elivery" ofmarija wo need to rove to te jy beyod a reasonabe obt at e ransr nvoved ams or more o marijana See Sae v and 7 SE2d 88 92 NC Ct App 212), d 742 SE2d 83 (2) (eplaining a e Sae can ner § 99(b)(2), rove

2 s 90-95(a) encomasses e o-rerave eery o ara, moreover, s not anilcit ackng" oense ner secton 0a)(43(B) See aer LGH pa at 37-72& n. 9 (epainin tat o meet te deniton o ilci acking der e Ac, te oensemst nvolve a commercial ansaction," ie, a passing o oods om one eson o anoer money o ote consieation")

4



7/14

A09 93 3

evey o ma y preset evece eihe ( o a trsr o ve o more ms omra, or (2 o a asr o ess ta ve ras o maaa emerato"

Te exstece o sc a mmm qt elemet wold ot make§ 909(a( vsbevsvs secto 0(a(3(B, however, ecase r te reos sate cee ot al

oeses vov possesso o s or more o maa wt et to dever wolcoespod to ederal loes der te CSA Alto a Norh Carola ry may sometmeseed to aee a a e elvere rs or more o mraa t wol ever ee toaree aot te extet to whch e ot exeeed rams, or wod t ee to d tat theamot exceee 30 amste det sma amot" tesho r mmrato ases

vew o the reo, we cocle that§ 909(a( s eher a cateora aravateeoy uer secto 0(a(3(B or vsle y mer whch wold serve to sppo therespoets removal Acordy, the removal chage er seto 237(a(2(A( o

te Act wll e dsmsse Te DHS has ot oe ay other removal hares aas erespoet, moreover, ad therere te removal proceeds wll e eate

RDER Te appea s sstaed d e remova proceeds are teate



8/14

NITED SATES DEPATMEN OF JSICEEXECTIV OFFICE FO IMMIGRAION EVIEW

NID STATES IMMIGATION COR

LMPKIN GEOGIA

Fe A09983344 December 3 204

In te Matter of

MIGEL GACIA OLVEA)))

)

IN EMOVAL POCEEDINGS

ESPONDENT

CHAGES Secton 237a)2)A)) aggavated felon tackng n a controledsubstance

APP ICATIONS Moton to temnate.

XHIBIIS . Notce to Appear

2 ecod of espondent's 6 Ju 999 convcton for possessonwth ntent to manufactue sale o delver maruana 2 pages)

ON BEHALF OF ESPONDEN MICHAE C. BINAPABON

ON BEHALF OF HS FAYAZ HABIB

ORA DECISION OF THE IMMIGATION JDGE

Fndn of Fact and Conuon of aw

Exbt was seed on respondent on 23 Septembe, 204.

On 5 Octobe 204 respondent admtted alegatons though 4 n


9/14


10/14


11/14

Employing the categorical appoach, the language of NCGSA Section 90-

95{a){) is aalogous to that of 2 U.SC Section 84{a){) In addition te exceptio

fo ess than fve gams of maijuana fr o emuneration ude NCGSA Section 90-

95(b)(2) is analogous to te exceptio fo a smal amount of maijuana fo emuneation

uder 2 SC Sectio 84{b)(4), wic drove te Supeme Co's decision in

Monciee

Unde the categoica appoach and Monciefe, spodents conviction

establishes that the oense ivoved "either remeration or moe ta a small amount

of marijuana" See Moncriefe 33 S Ct at 963-94. Cotary to the agmets i

respondets bief i suppo of deial of the cet emovability carge, NCGSA

Sectio 90-95{a){), y operatio of the section {b)(2) exception, necessarily poscibes

conduct tat is a feloy unde the fedea Contoled Substnces Act See id

The Court notes that the Monciee cou decined to define "small

amount" unde 2 USC. Section 84{b){4), bt obeed that the Board of mmigation

Appeas identifid 30 gams as a "usefu guidepost" See Moncriefe 33 S Ct at 678

7 {quoting Matte of Casto-Roriguez, 25 & Dec 698 70 {BA 202)) Bcause

te Boad of mmigation Appeals as only suggested this as a guidepost it is not

dispositive i this case and the Cout fids tat the anguage of the Noh Caolia

statute estabishes tat respondents conviction involved :eithe emuneatio or moe

tha a small amont of mariuaa"

herefoe because NCGSA Section 90-95()() is aaogous to 2

U SC Sectio 84(a)() a te Noth Caolia statute necessaily punises conduct

a a eoy uner te feea Contole ustances Act repondets conviction fo

a maijua distibtio oense costitutes a "drug taicking" ggavated feony unde

NS Sctio 0 {a)(43)(B) See Monciefe 33 S Ct at 963; see aso Matte of L-G-

A09-983-34 4 ecember 3 204


12/14

H- 26 l&N Dec 365 (BIA 201 4

In the alteative assumig the sake of agument that the Cou was

uable to detemie that espondents covction s an aggavated felon b using the

categocal appoach the Cou woud fd tat espodent's conviction s an

aggavated felon b usig the modifed categoical appoach As espondets counse

points out i his bief oe coud ague that the NCGSA Section 841 (a(1 is divisible.

e Cou fnds it compelng that the Noh Caolina Supeme Cou has pased ths

statute nto tee oenses (1 maufactue of a cotoed substance (2 tasfe of a

cooled substace b sale o delve ad (3 possesson with intent to manufactue

sel o delive a cotolled substace" State v. Mooe 327 N.C. 378 381 (990. I

an eaie case the Noth Caolina Supeme Cout even seemed to tea possessio

wth itent to se o delive as sepaae fom possesson with intet to manufactue

when t was consideing an ssue of u uamit See Stae v Ceason 33 NC 1 22

(1 985 heefoe ude the modfed categoical appoach this Cou woud be

pemied to go beond the pma convictio ecod and look to the chaging document

in evidence and see tat espondent was chaged wt possessing oe pound of

maiuaa with the tent to sel ad delve a cotoled substace See Descamps

1 33 S. Ct at 2284; see aso S v Esela 758 F3d 1 239 1 246 (th C 201 4

eefoe eve wit the Boad of Immigatio Appeals 30gam guidepost

espoden's convcto is fo a aggavated felon unde Monciee

Accodgl espodets motion to teminate emova poceedings s

deied

espodent euested o elief

ODE

espodet wil be emoved fom te United States to Mexico

A091 983344 5 Decembe 3 201 4


13/14

A wttn ord fcting th abov dcsion will b provdd spaatly

and mad pa of th rcord

sign ture

A091 -983-3

Peae ee the next a ge for eectronic

D MBLEmmigration Judg

6 Dcmb 3 201


14/14

/Isl/

Imigration Judge DAN TRMBLE

trmble o Febay 2, 2015 t 2:40 PM GMT

A099844 7 Decembe 04

Miguel Garcia Olvera, A091 983 344 (BIA March 25, 2015)

Documents

Transcript of Miguel Garcia Olvera, A091 983 344 (BIA March 25, 2015)