The felony/misdemeanor distinction is also important in other contexts:

 

BIA

AGGRAVATED FELONY"CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES"DISTRIBUTION OF SMALL AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA WITHOUT REMUNERATION
Matter of Castro Rodriguez, 25 I&N Dec. 698 (BIA 2012) (noncitizen bears burden to establish state conviction of intent to distribute involved a "small amount of marihuana for no remuneration within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(4), which the noncitizen may establish by presenting evidence outside of the record of conviction), Matter of Aruna, 24 I&N Dec. 452 (BIA 2008), clarified.

AGGRAVATED FELONY " DRUG TRAFFICKING OFFENSE " DISTRIBUTION OF SMALL AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA
Matter of Castro-Rodriguez, 25 I&N Dec. 698 (BIA 2012) (remanding case to IJ to allow respondent to present factual evidence that Virginia conviction of possession with the intent to give or distribute less than one-half ounce of marijuana, in violation of Va. Rev. Stat. 18.2-248.1(a)(1), involved only gratuitous distribution of a small amount of marijuana); following Matter of Aruna, 24 I&N Dec. 452 (BIA 2008) (the federal felony conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance offense, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D), allows for the consideration of evidence outside the record of conviction for the purpose of reducing the felony offense to a misdemeanor); citing United States v. Hamlin, 319 F.3d 666, 670-71 (4th Cir. 2003). NOTE: The BIA relied upon Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009), to find the circumstance-specific approach is appropriate to determine whether a conviction of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute involved a small amount of marijuana and no remuneration. The BIA stated that the less than 30 grams of marijuana exception, may, in general, serve as a useful guidepost in determining whether an amount is small. Matter of Castro Rodriguez, 25 I&N Dec. at 703.

First Circuit

AGGRAVATED FELONY - DRUG TRAFFICKING - FEDERAL MISDEMEANOR DISTRIBUTION OF SMALL AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA
Julce v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. Jun. 20, 2008) (Massachusetts conviction of possession with intent to distribute a Class D substance (marijuana), in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, 32C(a), constituted aggravated felony drug trafficking conviction, under INA 101(a)(43)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(B), for purposes of the aggravated felony disqualification from eligibility for cancellation of removal for LPRs, rejecting the argument that the offense would have been treated as a misdemeanor pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(4), under the hypothetical federal felony analysis, if prosecuted under federal law), disagreeing with Wilson v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 377, 381 (3d Cir.2003).

AGGRAVATED FELONY - DRUG TRAFFICKING - FEDERAL MISDEMEANOR DISTRIBUTION OF SMALL AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA
Julce v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. Jun.20, 2008) (burden is on the noncitizen/defendant to show that a state conviction for distribution of marijuana would have been treated as a misdemeanor pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(4), under the hypothetical federal felony analysis, if prosecuted under federal law; court leaves open the question of whether the noncitizen must meet burden only through criminal documents or can introduce additional evidence before the IJ), disagreeing with Wilson v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 377, 381 (3d Cir.2003)

Second Circuit

AGGRAVATED FELONY - DRUG TRAFFICKING- GRATUITOUS DISTRIBUTION OF A SMALL AMOUNT OF MARIHUANA
Martinez v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. Dec. 18, 2008) (New York conviction for criminal sale of marihuana in the fourth degree, in violation of NYPL 221.40, is not categorically a drug trafficking aggravated felony, since the offense punishes non-remunerative distribution of as little as two grams of marijuana; the minimum conduct analysis applies, and the Government, not the respondent, bears the burden of proving the conviction is an aggravated felony).

NOTE: This case implicitly disagrees with Matter of Aruna, 24 I&N Dec. 452 (BIA 2008) (respondents burden to show conviction was for distribution of a small amount of marijuana without remuneration).

Third Circuit

AGGRAVATED FELONY - DRUG TRAFFICKING - DRUG POSSESSION AND LESSER OFFENSES - DISTRIBUTION OF A SMALL AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA
Evanson v. Attorney General, 550 F.3d 284 (3d Cir. Dec. 19, 2008) (Pennsylvania conviction for violation of 35 Pa. Stat. Ann. 780-113, manufacture, deliver, or possess with an intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance, to wit: marijuana, is not necessarily an aggravated felony because the statute includes distribution of a small amount of marijuana without remuneration, which is neither a federal felony, nor a drug trafficking offense), following Steele v. Blackman, 236 F.3d 130, 137 (3d Cir.2001).

NOTE: the BIA, in Matter of Aruna, 24 I&N Dec. 452 (BIA 2008), disagreed, finding that the "gratuitous distribution of a small amount of marijuana" statute was an affirmative defense, which the defendant must prove. Counsel can argue that, in the case of a state conviction, there is no such statutory exception and defense counsel in state court would have had no reason to submit proof that only a small amount was involved. Therefore, to require that this extra showing have been made before the state court is unreasonable. Thanks to Jonathan Moore.

Fifth Circuit

AGGRAVATED FELONIES " DRUG TRAFFICKING " CERT GRANTED
Moncrieffe v. Holder, 662 F.3d 387 (5th Cir. Nov. 8, 2011), cert. granted, No. 11-702 (Apr. 2, 2012). Note: The Supreme Court will decide whether a state conviction under a state statute that includes distribution of a small amount of marijuana without remuneration is a drug trafficking aggravated felony, even where the record of conviction does not establish that the noncitizen was convicted of an offense that would constitute a federal felony.

Sixth Circuit

AGGRAVATED FELONY " DRUG TRAFFICKING " POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DELIVER
Garcia v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 1105591 (6th Cir. Mar. 28, 2011) (Michigan conviction attempted possession of marijuana with the intent to deliver [actual, constructive, or attempted transfer from 1 person to another] less than five kilograms, in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws 333.7401(2)(d)(iii), constituted a drug trafficking aggravated felony, under INA 101(a)(43)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(B), even though no commercial element was required to constitute the offense, because the federal Controlled Substances Act similarly prohibits a person from possess[ing] with intent to ... distribute ... a controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), as a felony, rejecting the argument that government must negate the misdemeanor exception under which gratuitous distribution of a small amount of marijuana constitutes only a misdemeanor under 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(4) since the small amount exception is not an element of the offense); see United States v. Bartholomew, 310 F.3d 912, 925 (6th Cir. 2002) (the amount of marijuana involved need not be proven to the jury in order to convict under 841(a) or punish under 841(b)(1)(D)); United States v. Hamlin, 319 F.3d 666, 670-71 (4th Cir. 2003) (holding that 841(b)(1)(D) is the default provision for possessing an undetermined amount of marijuana with the intent to distribute the drug); following Julce v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 30, 34-36 (1st Cir. 2008); contra, Martinez v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 113, 120 (2d Cir. 2008) ([W]e look no further than to the fact that Martinez's conviction could have been for precisely the sort of nonremunerative transfer of small quantities of marihuana that is only a federal misdemeanor under 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(4).); Jeune v. Attorney Gen., 476 F.3d 199, 205 (3d Cir. 2007) (the least culpable conduct involved a small amount of marijuana and no remunerative exchange, Jeune's state offense was deemed punishable under the misdemeanor provision of 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(4) and therefore not an aggravated felony).

Other

ARGUMENT " AGGRAVATED FELONY " GRATUITOUS DISTRIBUTION OF SMALL AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA
Counsel can argue that the Board of Immigration Appeals holding in Matter of Aruna, 24 I. & N. Dec. 452 (BIA 2008), that where a noncitizen was convicted under state law of distribution of marijuana, the offense would be considered an aggravated felony unless the respondent could prove to the Immigration Court that the offense did fall within 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(4) (gratuitous distribution of small amount of marijuana constituted no more than a misdemeanor under federal controlled substances acts), is in error, since the reasoning of Matter of Aruna has been overruled by the United States Supreme Court in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, __ U.S. __, 130 S.Ct. 2577 (2010), which rejected the hypothetical federal felony reasoning on which Matter of Aruna was based.