BIA Overrules Decades-Old Precedent, Holds an Admission to Drug Use Need Not Track the Statute's Precise Elements

In a significant precedent decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals has overruled Matter of K- (1957) and Matter of J- (1945), holding that a non-citizen's admission to having possessed and used cocaine renders him inadmissible under INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) even though he was never advised of the precise statutory definition or essential elements of the offense before admitting to the conduct.

The Board reasoned that the controlled substance inadmissibility ground requires only that the respondent voluntarily admit to conduct that constitutes the essential elements of the offense and receive a fair hearing — nothing in the statute's plain language requires that he first be instructed on the formal legal definition of the crime. Requiring that additional procedural step, the Board held, "exceeds what is required under the plain language of the statute," and the appeal was dismissed.

The full text of Matter of Tirso Mendez Maldonado can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1462126/dl?inline

Eighth Circuit Determines that Arkansas Definition of Cocaine is Broader than Definition in CSA

The Eighth Circuit has determined that Arkansas’ definition of cocaine is broader than the federal definition in the CSA because it criminalizes more isomers than the federal definition.

The full text of United States v. Ferguson can be found here: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/01/242178P.pdf

First Circuit Adopts "Time of Conviction" Rule

The First Circuit has determined that when looking at whether a non-citizen has been convicted of a controlled substance violation, an immigration court should look at the Controlled Substances Act as it was written at the time of the conviction.

The full text of Dor v. Bondi can be found here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/25-1278P-01A.pdf

Third Circuit finds that PA Conviction for Using a Communication Facility to Commit Felony Indivisible

The Third Circuit has determined that a Pennsylvania conviction for using a communication facility to commit a felony is overbroad and indivisible as compared to the definitions of a controlled substance offense and an aggravated felony. Specifically, the court determined that the facilitated felony is a mean, and not an element, of the offense. One juror can believe that Felony A was committed by use of the communication device, while another juror believes Felony B was committed.

The full text of Hillocks v. Attorney General can be found here:
https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/172384p.pdf