While the aggravated felony definition includes attempt and conspiracy to commit an aggravated felony,[679] a number of cases in the drug trafficking context have held that conviction of a non-substantive drug offense other than attempt or conspiracy is not an aggravated felony, at least for immigration purposes.  See § 19.13-19.20, supra.  There is also an argument that a state attempt or conspiracy conviction may not qualify as an aggravated felony for immigration purposes, since the state definition of “attempt” or “conspiracy” may be broader than the federal definition.  See § § 19.27, 19.32, supra.

 

[679] INA § 101(a)(43)(U), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(U).

AGGRAVATED FELONY - DRUG TRAFFICKING - USING TELEPHONE TO MAKE MISDEMEANOR DRUG PURCHASE DOES NOT FACILITATE FELONY DRUG DISTRIBUTION
Abuelhawa v. United States, 129 S.Ct. 2102 (May 26, 2009) (reversing conviction of knowingly or intentionally using a communication facility in committing or facilitating a drug distribution offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 843(b), on grounds that using a telephone to make a misdemeanor drug purchase does not constitute "facilitation" of felony drug distribution).

First Circuit

AGGRAVATED FELONY " DRUG TRAFFICKING OFFENSES " SOLICITATION
James v. Holder, 698 F.3d 24, *27 (1st Cir. Oct. 19, 2012) (The more difficult issue is whether James' conviction under section 21a"277(b) was for an offense that would also comprise trafficking"which is true of some but not necessarily all of the subordinate offenses listed in the Connecticut statute. The INA (through a series of cross-references) defines illicit trafficking to include the manufacture, distribution and dispensing of a controlled substance, as well as possession with intent to do any of these; INA 101(a)(43)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(B), cf.18 U.S.C. 924(c)(2); 21 U.S.C. 841(a); but this definition does not appear to encompass offers and gifts, which are criminalized under the Connecticut statute.); citing United States v. Savage, 542 F.3d 959, 965 (2d Cir.2008) (Conn.Gen.Stat. 21a"277(b) plainly criminalizes, inter alia, a mere offer to sell a controlled substance, which might be made absent possession); Mendieta"Robles v. Gonzales, 226 Fed. App'x 564, 568"69 (6th Cir.2007) (conviction under state statute that criminalizes gift of drugs is not necessarily an illicit trafficking offense under INA); see also Matter of Davis, 20 I. & N. Dec. 536, 541 (B.I.A. 1992) (business or merchant nature is [e]ssential to the term trafficking under INA).).

Fifth Circuit

AGGRAVATED FELONY - DRUG TRAFFICKING - DELIVERY OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
United States v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 712 (5th Cir. 2007) (Texas conviction for delivery of a controlled substance, in violation of V.T.C.A., Health & Safety Code 481.112, was not a drug-trafficking offense for illegal re-entry sentence enhancement purposes, since the definition of "deliver" includes solicitation, and solicitation is not included as a non-substantive offense that can trigger a sentence enhancement under the 2004 version of U.S.S.G. 2L1.2).

Ninth Circuit

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES " PARAPHERNALIA " UNLISTED SUBSTANCE
Madrigal-Barcenas v. Lynch, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 4716767 (9th Cir. Aug. 10, 2015) (Nevada drug paraphernalia conviction, under NRSA 453.566, constitutes a controlled substance conviction, for purposes of inadmissibility, only if the conviction involved a substance criminalized by federal drug laws); following Mellouli v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 2828 (2015); holding Luu-Le v. INS, 224 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 2000) and its progeny are no longer good law.