The following authorities may be of use in analyzing inadmissibility based on a claim that the Government has reason to believe respondent was an illicit trafficker in a controlled substance, under INA 212(a)(2)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(C)(i).

If immigration officials have reason to believe that a noncitizen has ever assisted in drug trafficking or been a drug trafficker, the person is inadmissible (but not deportable). INA 212(a)(2)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(C)(i), all that is needed to trigger this ground is reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence that a person has knowingly engaged in drug trafficking. See Matter of Rico, 16 I&N Dec. 181, 185-86 (BIA 1977); Alarcon-Serano v. INS, 220 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). See also Castano v. INS, 956 F.2d 236, 238 (11th Cir. 1992) (governments knowledge or reasonable belief that an individual has trafficked in drugs must be based on credible evidence).

Drug trafficking has been defined as some sort of commercial dealing, (see Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 US 47, 127 S.Ct. 625, 166 L. Ed. 2d 462, (2006)) and the unlawful trading or dealing of any controlled substance. See Matter of Davis, 20 I&N Dec. 536, 541 (BIA 1992). Evidence such as police reports, testimony from police, admissions by noncitizens, delinquency adjudications, adult convictions, and any other evidence of sale or possession with intent to distribute have all been held to supply reason to believe. See Matter of Favela, 16 I&N Dec. 753. 756 (BIA 1979); Matter of Rico, supra (reason to believe found based on testimony of Border Patrol agents that respondent frequently drove a car in which 162 pounds of marijuana was found). The RTB ground also applies to any spouse, son, or daughter of a drug trafficker who has received some financial or other benefit from the trafficking in the previous five years. Importantly, though, the terms son and daughter under immigration law refer only to those who are over the age of 21. Thus, this ground should not apply to noncitizens who receive a benefit from a parents drug trafficking while still juveniles.

Because the RTB drug trafficking ground cannot be waived in any context, except that of U and T Visa applicants, it creates a nearly absolute bar to a client receiving any form of lawful immigration status. Also, because the RTB bar is so low and can apparently be met by evidence brought out during juvenile proceedings, it is vital for defense counsel to be aware of any evidence of drug trafficking that is admitted and to fight the admission of such evidence whenever possible.

A guilty plea alone, without conviction and without independent evidence of drug trafficking, is insufficient evidence to sustain a DHS charge of reason to believe. Cf. Matter of Winter, 12 I&N Dec. 638 (BIA 1967, 1968) (guilty plea, which resulted in something less than a conviction, insufficient to sustain a finding of inadmissibility based on admission of offense); Matter of Seda, 17 I&N Dec. 550 (BIA 1980); Matter of Thomas, 21 I&N Dec. 20 (BIA 1995) (limiting use of conviction on appeal to discretionary considerations); but see Matter of I, 4 I&N Dec. 159 (BIA 1950, AG 1950) (where dismissal or acquittal results from purely technical infirmities or from perjured testimony, BIA will not abide by its usual practice of deference to judicial decisions).