SERGIO ARRIOLA-CARRILLO V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-73220 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 26 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS SERGIO DE JESUS ARRIOLACARRILLO, AKA Sergio Arriola-Carrillo, AKA Sergio Arriola-Carrio, No. 11-73220 Agency No. A070-031-599 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted February 12, 2015 Pasadena, California Before: CALLAHAN, WATFORD, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Sergio de Jesus Arriola-Carrillo was convicted of soliciting the commission of a drug offense. Cal. Penal Code § 653f(d)(1). Such a conviction ordinarily renders an alien inadmissible. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). ArriolaCarrillo argues that because his state-court solicitation conviction was later * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Page 2 of 2 expunged, the Federal First Offender Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3607(a), prevents that conviction from serving as the basis of any adverse immigration consequence. Arriola-Carrillo does not qualify for FFOA treatment. The FFOA applies only to those convicted of simple possession or a lesser offense. Nunez-Reyes v. Holder, 646 F.3d 684, 695 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc). Solicitation is not a lesser offense. Because it does not share the same elements as the federal crime of simple possession, solicitation is “qualitatively different from any federal conviction for which FFOA treatment would be available.” Id. Further, like the crime of being under the influence in Nunez-Reyes, solicitation may “carr[y] an immediate risk of dangerous behavior, which mere possession does not necessarily create.” Id. The drug trade is notoriously violent, and transactions between wouldbe buyers and would-be sellers can escalate into dangerous confrontations. Mere possession, by contrast, does not necessarily pose such risks, as the Nunez-Reyes court observed. Id. The BIA correctly concluded that Arriola-Carrillo is ineligible for FFOA treatment. The BIA was therefore also correct that although Arriola-Carrillo’s conviction was expunged, it nonetheless “remains for immigration purposes,” rendering Arriola-Carrillo inadmissible and ineligible for adjustment of status. PETITION DENIED.
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.
