Coronado v. Holder, No. 11-72121 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePetitioner sought review of the BIA's decision finding him inadmissible and denying his application for cancellation of removal. The court held that the conviction under which petitioner was convicted, California Health & Safety Code 11377(a), was a divisible statute under Descamps v. United States, and therefore, the court applied the modified categorical approach in analyzing his prior convictions. The court concluded that the government satisfied its burden in proving that petitioner was twice convicted of methamphetamine, a controlled substance listed in the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 802. Accordingly, the court concluded that the BIA did not err in finding petitioner inadmissible based on his prior convictions. However, the court remanded because the BIA failed to address petitioner's due process claims regarding the ineffective assistance of counsel and bias by the IJ. Finally, the court dismissed petitioner's unexhausted equal protection claim for lack of jurisdiction.
Court Description: Immigration. The panel denied in part, granted in part, and dismissed in part Raul Quijada Coronado’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision finding him inadmissible based on his prior drug convictions and denying his cancellation of removal application. The panel held that Coronado’s convictions for possessing methamphetamine, in violation of California Health & Safety Code § 11377(a), are not categorical removable offenses, because the “full range of conduct” covered by § 11377(a) does not fall within the federal Controlled Substances Act schedules. The panel further held under Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013), that § 11377(a) is a divisible statute. It thus applied the modified categorical approach, and held that the government satisfied its burden to prove that Coronado was twice convicted of possessing methamphetamine, a controlled substance listed in the CSA, and that the BIA therefore did not err in finding him inadmissible. The panel also held that the BIA failed to address Coronado’s due process claims alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and bias by the immigration judge, and remanded to the BIA for consideration of the claims in the first instance.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on July 18, 2014.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.