• Employers
    • Permanent Visas
      • PERM Labor Certifications
    • Temporary Visas
      • E-3 Visas
      • H-1B Employment
        • H-1B1 Visa
      • L-1 Visas
      • J-1 Visas
      • O-1 Visas
      • TN, Canadian/Mexican
  • Employees
    • Nonimmigrant Visa Applications (Consular)
    • National Interest Waivers
  • Entrepreneurs
    • E-1 & E-2 Visas
  • Compliance
    • I-9/Worksite Enforcement
  • Family & Individuals
    • Marriage
    • Deportation, Removal & Asylum
    • Hearings & Appeals
    • Naturalization
    • Students
      • STEM OPT Visas
  • About Us
    • Blog
    • Testimonials
    • Attorneys
      • Philip M. Levin, Founder
      • Don L. Pangilinan, Principal
      • Alec P. Wilczynski, Of Counsel
      • Alexandra Cotroneo, Associate

Levin and Pangilinan PC

U.S. Immigration and Nationality Law

¿Necesitas el sitio web en español?

800.974.2691
Contact Us
  • Employers
    • Permanent Visas
      • PERM Labor Certifications
    • Temporary Visas
      • E-3 Visas
      • H-1B Employment
        • H-1B1 Visa
      • L-1 Visas
      • J-1 Visas
      • O-1 Visas
      • TN, Canadian/Mexican
  • Employees
    • Nonimmigrant Visa Applications (Consular)
    • National Interest Waivers
  • Entrepreneurs
    • E-1 & E-2 Visas
  • Compliance
    • I-9/Worksite Enforcement
  • Family & Individuals
    • Marriage
    • Deportation, Removal & Asylum
    • Hearings & Appeals
    • Naturalization
    • Students
      • STEM OPT Visas
  • About Us
    • Blog
    • Testimonials
    • Attorneys
      • Philip M. Levin, Founder
      • Don L. Pangilinan, Principal
      • Alec P. Wilczynski, Of Counsel
      • Alexandra Cotroneo, Associate

BIA Ruling on Controlled Substance Violation & Categorical Approach

April 24, 2023 Philip Levin

BIA Holds That Any Fact That Establishes Or Increases The Permissible Range Of Punishment For A Criminal Offense Is An “Element” For Purposes Of The Categorical Approach, Even If The Term “Element” Is Defined Differently Under State Law. Matter of Laguerre, 28 I&N Dec. 437 (BIA 2022) Followed. Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, Title 35, §780-113(a)(30), Which Punishes Possession With Intent To Deliver A Controlled Substance, Is Divisible With Respect To The Identity Of The Controlled Substance Possessed, And The Respondent’s Conviction Under This Statute Is One For A Controlled Substance Violation Under INA §237(a)(2)(B)(i) Under The Modified Categorical Approach.

On May 5, 2022, The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) affirmed an order by the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying Respondent’s application for cancellation of removal, finding him removable under §237(a)(2)(B)(i), and dismissed his appeal. Respondent had been convicted in Pennsylvania of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance per Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, Title 35, §780-113(a)(30), after a traffic accident in which his car hit a pedestrian; he was also convicted of 2 counts of driving under the influence of a controlled substance. The IJ denied cancellation as a matter of discretion, finding Respondent did not testify credibly or accept responsibility.

On appeal, Respondent claimed the statute of conviction was overbroad and indivisible and therefore did not categorically define an offense relating to a controlled substance; he relied on a Pennsylvania Superior Court case, Commonwealth v. Beatty, 227 A.3d 1277 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020), which he claimed superceded precedential decisions of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals concluding that “the identity of the controlled substance is an element of the offense such that the statute is divisible by substance”. Respondent contended that under state law, the identity of a controlled substance is merely a “grading factor” in sentencing, not an element of the offense. He also challenged the IJ’s discretionary cancellation denial. The BIA concluded that, regardless of Pennsylvania’s classification, any fact that establishes or increases the permissible range of punishment is an element of the offense for Federal purposes. Here, the identity of the controlled substance established the range of punishment and was therefore an element of the offense; the statute was thus divisible and the IJ’s ruling was affirmed.

Initially, in discussing removability, the Board stated that it first had to determine whether Respondent had been convicted of a controlled substance offense under §237(a)(2)(B)(i), a question of law reviewed de novo. The decision stated that Matter of Laguerre, 28 I&N Dec. 437 (BIA 2022) had recently explained that whether a state statute categorically defines a controlled substance offense under §237(a)(2)(B)(i) is determined by whether the elements of the state law match those of the generic definition of an offense relating to a controlled substance. For a categorical match, “the Pennsylvania statute must include, as an element of the offense, a substance controlled under the [Federal] Controlled Substances Act.” “Elements” must necessarily be found by a jury or necessarily admitted by a defendant, whereas “means” or non-elemental facts are not necessary to support a conviction.

The BIA further found that the state schedules clearly include controlled substances not listed in the federal schedules. Respondent’s removability was therefore dependent “on whether the identity of the controlled substance is an ‘element’ of the offense that must be proven, rendering the statute divisible and susceptible to a modified categorical inquiry, or whether the identity of the substance merely identifies a ‘means’ of violating the statute, in which case the overbroad statute would be indivisible and could not support the charges of removability.” Resultingly, per Laguerre, where the identity of the substance is an element, and the conviction record reflects that substance is Federally controlled via the modified categorical approach, the offense is categorically a controlled substance offense under the INA.

Next, to determine whether a term listed in an alternatively-phrased statute is an element of the offense, the BIA noted that if begins by looking to authoritative sources of the state law. Respondent directed the Board to Beatty, which he claimed had recently clarified that, under state law, the identity of a controlled substance is not an element of his statute of conviction and that “this controlling interpretation” of Pennsylvania law supersedes existing 3rd Circuit precedent to the contrary. Beatty observed that the identity of a controlled substance is not listed at §780-113(a)(30), explaining that the substance’s specific identity is not an element of the offense-that the drug’s identity “is only relevant for gradation and penalties based on the relevant schedule.” And, noted the opinion, the schedules provide for different penalties depending upon the identity of the controlled substance. 

The decision explained that Beatty “neither alters existing [Pennsylvania] law nor supercedes the Third Circuit’s construction” of §780-113(a)(30); the question thus boiled down to whether or not the statutory alternatives in Respondent’s statute of conviction are “elements” under Federal law. Additionally, Laguarre noted that state court decisions that do not give the term “element” the meaning and significance the U.S. Supreme Court did “do not control the determination of whether a statutory alternative is an “element” for purpose of the categorical approach.

Accordingly, concluded the BIA, under Pennsylvania law, the imposition of any penalty for a §780-113(a)(30) conviction requires the identification of the controlled substance at issue with sufficient specificity to determine which paragraph of that section applies. Further, because the identity of the substance must be submitted to the jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it is an “element” of the statute under Federal law, regardless of Pennsylvania’s decision to label it a “grading factor,” rendering the statute “divisible by substance under the categorical approach.”

As Respondent’s statute of conviction is divisible with respect to the identity of the controlled substance, the Board applied the modified categorical approach to identify the substance underlying his conviction. It was undisputed that the substance in this case was marijuana, which is Federally controlled under Schedule I. As a result, Respondent committed an offense categorically related to a controlled substance violation; he was therefore removable as charged per §237(a)(2)(B)(i).

Regarding the denial of Respondent’s cancellation application, the BIA discerned no clear error in the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. Respondent did not dispute that his car hit a pedestrian who was transported to a hospital with internal bleeding. The IJ found that Respondent drove through a red light while intoxicated; those findings were not clearly erroneous. The IJ was not required to accept the claim that the victim walked into Respondent’s car while it was stopped in a line of traffic at a red light. The IJ also reasonably determined that the nature, recency and seriousness of Respondent’s criminal conduct, viewed in light of his incredible testimony and failure to accept responsibility, outweighed the favorable factors and considerations presented on his behalf and militated against a favorable exercise of discretion. The cancellation denial was affirmed and the appeal dismissed. Matter of German Santos, 28 I&N Dec.552 (BIA 2022).

Disclaimer: The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. 

You have questions. We have answers.

Filed Under: BIA

Contact Us

Recent Blog Posts

  • U.S. Visa Interview Waiver Program: Important 2025 Updates
  • New DOS Guidance on Mandating Social Media Review of all F-1, M-1, and J-1 visa applicants and Possible Revocations: What You Need to Know
  • H-1B LOTTERY FY 2026 AND THE RECENT MODERNIZATION RULE 
  • Birthright Citizenship Under Fire: Trump’s Latest Executive Order Explained
  • BIA Holds That Its Prior Holding In Matter Of Fernandes, 28 I&N Dec. 605 (BIA 2022), That An Objection To A Noncompliant Notice To Appear Will Generally Be Considered Timely If Raised Prior To The Close Of Pleadings Is Not A Change In Law, And Thus Matter Of Fernandes Applies Retroactively.

Practice Areas

  • Business Immigration
  • Family Immigration
  • Marriage
  • PERM Labor Certification
  • Hearing & Appeals
  • Deportation, Removal, Asylum
  • I-9/Worksite Enforcement

LEAVE A REVIEW

Leave a Review on Google

        

San Francisco Office
930 Montgomery Street
Suite 502
San Francisco, CA 94133

Silicon Valley Office
5201 Great America Parkway
Suite 320
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Los Angeles Office
445 S. Figueroa Street
Suites 2600 & 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90071
©2025 Levin and Pangilinan PC. All Rights Reserved.
  • Business Immigration
  • Family Immigration
  • Labor Certification
  • I-9/Worksite Enforcement
  • Hearings & Appeals
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 · XML Sitemap · Sitemap

R-1
TN

The TN nonimmigrant classification allows qualified Canadian and Mexican citizens to enter the U.S. and engage in professional business activities. LPPC will help you navigate through the TN application process by evaluating your eligibility, preparing supporting documentation for your application, and ultimately filing your application. 

B-1

LPPC will guide you through the consular process to receive a B-1 visa for specific short-term business purposes ranging from contract negotiations to seminars and conferences.

O-1

O-1 visas are for persons of extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business or sports. 

J-1

Administered by the Department of State, the J-1 visa is for students, trainees, academics, researchers, professionals or experts participating in an approved Exchange Visitor program. LPPC will assist you and your sponsor with preparing the necessary paperwork and the consular process so you can begin your program at ease. 

E-1 & E-2

E-1 visas and E-2 visas are for nationals of countries with which the United States has a treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation (FCN) or bilateral investment treaty (BIT). If you are a nonimmigrant trader or investor seeking to conduct business operations or develop a new enterprise in the U.S., we will help you file for the appropriate visa. As a recognized expert in this area, Mr. Levin will provide experienced and dependable assistance with E-1 or E-2 visa applications. 

  • E-1: If you are a national of a country that conducts a significant volume of trade with the U.S. (or if you intend to develop trade between the U.S. and your home country) you might be eligible for entry under an E-1 visa. 
  • E-2: The E-2 visa allows investors from treaty countries to enter the U.S. for purposes of directing and developing a business, with all the commitments and risks implicit in entrepreneurial activity. 
L-1

The L-1 visa category is for executives, managers or professionals employed by foreign affiliates of U.S companies. The L-1 visa is divided into two classifications:

  • L-1A Intracompany Transferee Executive or Manager
  • L-1B Intracompany Transferee Specialized Knowledge
H-1B

Many companies in the United States find themselves increasingly dependent on the talent, experience and energy of foreign national workers in professional, technical or specialized occupational fields. These employees typically enter the U.S. on nonimmigrant H-1B visas for “specialty occupations.” 

With extensive experience in business immigration, you can count on LPPC to guide your company or Human Resources department in preparing and filing an H-1B visa petition.

Green Card

Family preservation and reunification is a priority for our firm. Our attorneys have advised and assisted families from all over the world with entry visas, adjustment of status, and other immigration problems. 

  • Immediate Relatives: If you are the spouse, child, or parent of a U.S. citizen, we can help you obtain a green card through an Immediate Relative petition. 
  • Family-Based Preference: If your relative is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, we can assist you with your green card application through one of the family based preference categories.
Fiances

If you are a U.S. citizen and your fiancé/fiancée or spouse is overseas, our office will assist you to navigate the CIS requirements and regulations to have the case approved and then prepare you and your spouse for the interview at the U.S. Embassy. LPPC will also help you find the best ways to resolve any problems you encounter if a waiver is required in your case.

Marriage

Immigration through marriage is a common means of obtaining permanent residence in the U.S.  Since 1991, Philip Levin & Associates has helped hundreds of couples immigrate to the U.S. and build their lives together. 

  • I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status: If you are married to a U.S. citizen, present in the U.S. and eligible to do so, our attorneys will assist you in preparing and filing the necessary I-130 petition and I-485 adjustment of status application in the U.S.
  • Immigrant Visa Consular Processing: If you are married to a U.S. citizen and reside abroad, we will assist you in preparing and filing the IV petition with an Embassy or Consulate-General in your native country. 
  • I-751, Remove Conditions on Residence: If you have been married less than two years at the time your green card was initially approved, our office will help you in the joint petition process to become a permanent resident.