Pedro Madrigal-Barcenas v. Eric Holder, Jr.

MEMORANDUM

Pedro Madrigal-Barcenas petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his application for cancellation of removal on account of his conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of section 453.566 of the Nevada Revised Statutes. Reviewing de novo, Ruiz-Vidal v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1072 , 1076 n. 2 (9th Cir.2007), we deny the petition.

1. A nonpermanent resident may be eligible for cancellation of removal only if he “has not been convicted of an offense under [ 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a)(2) ].” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(C). The offenses listed under § 1182(a)(2) include violations of “any law ... relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of Title 21).” 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a)(2)(A)(i)(IR. A state statute that criminalizes possession of paraphernalia for use with drugs may be a law “relating to a controlled substance” for these purposes. Minh Duc Luu-Le v. INS, 224 F.3d 911, 916 (9th Cir.2000).

2. The facts of this case are analogous to those in previous decisions regarding other states’ drug paraphernalia statutes: United States v. Oseguera-Madrigal, 700 F.3d 1196, 1199-200 (9th Cir.2012); Bermudez v. Holder, 586 F.3d 1167,…