&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbspA defendant convicted of 30 grams of marijuana or less is not deportable under INA 237(a)(2)(B). There is no similar exception under INA 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) for being deportable for having an aggravated felony conviction. The Third Circuit treats a state conviction for possession of a controlled substance as an aggravated felony only if the defendant could have received felony treatment under federal law had s/he been prosecuted in federal court. In developing this rule, the Third Circuit recognized that in other circuits, a defendant with felony possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana would be deportable for having an aggravated felony conviction even though that same defendant would not be deportable as a controlled substance offender. Gerbier v. Holmes, 280 F.3d 297, 312 (3d Cir. 2002). In Matter of Yanez, 23 I. & N. Dec. 390 (BIA 2002), the BIA reversed earlier decisions interpreting when a nocitizen convicted of a controlled substance offense was deportable under the aggravated felony ground of deportability. One of those now rejected BIA decisions incorporated argument that the 30 gram exception applies to aggravated felonies as part of its rationale. See Matter of L-G, 21 I. & N. Dec. 89 (BIA 1995). &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbspThe Third Circuit addressed a different aspect of the 30 gram rule. See Wilson v. Ashcroft, __ F.3d__, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 24057 (3d Cir. Nov. 26, 2003) (recognizing in inadmissibility context that 30 gram exception was ground-specific and would not forgive inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(C), INA 212(a)(2)(C) for reason to believe the noncitizen engaged in drug trafficking, even if possession with intent to distribute were a possessory offense, because 212(h) waiver applies only to controlled substance ground of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i), INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)). &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbspThe 30 gram exception appears to apply only to the controlled substances ground of deportation, not to the aggravated felony ground. Thus, the government would have an argument this exception does not apply at all as a defense to an NTA charging removal as an aggravated felon. On the other hand, Congress clearly meant to exempt from deportation someone who possessed under 30 grams of marijuana, so a sympathetic court of appeals might rule the exception applied both to CSO and AF grounds of deportation. See Lemus-Rodriguez, 350 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. November 26, 2003) (sporting exception to destructive device exception applies to firearm deportation ground even though statute does not say so, since Congress obviously meant the exception to apply). This argument is not as strong here as in the firearms context, however, since in that context a portion of the statute would have been made meaningless otherwise, whereas here the aggravated felony category does not automatically contain all under 30 gram possession cases. Thanks to Dan Kesselbrenner for this analysis.