Lopez-Molina v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. June 2, 2004) (facts established substantial evidence to believe noncitizen was involved in drug trafficking, is therefore removable under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(C)(i); court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to review final removal order based on reason to believe ground of inadmissibility), following Alarcon-Serrano v. IONS, 220 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2000).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0274095p.pdf

Normally, the burden of proof is on the noncitizen to prove admissibility. See, e.g. 22 C.F.R. 40.6.  However, unlike other grounds of inadmissibility, the "reason to believe" ground is based on the immigration or consular official's belief.  Thus, courts have held that here the DHS has the burden to produce reasonable, substantial and probative evidence to establish this ground of inadmissibility.  Alarcon-Serrano v. INS, 220 F.3d 1116 (9th 2000).

To demonstrate "trafficking," the government must produce substantial and probative evidence that the noncitizen was engaged in the business of selling or dealing in controlled substances; simple possession or transfer without consideration are not sufficient to establish illicit trafficking.  The government must also prove the essential element of intent: the specific intent to distribute controlled substances.  See, e.g., Matter of Rico, 16 I. & N. Dec.

Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 824 (9th Cir. 2003) (If government seeks to use evidence of noncitizens admission as evidence in support of reason to believe inadmissibility allegation, respondent can seek to exercise right of cross-examination)

Wilson v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 377 (3d Cir. November 26, 2003) (New Jersey conviction dated November 17, 1995, for possession with intent to distribute more than one ounce (twenty eight grams) of marijuana, in violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. 2C:35-5b(11), might have failed to give the INS reason to believe the defendant had been a drug trafficker, triggering inadmissibility under INA 237(a)(2)(C)(i), for which ground of inadmissibility there is no 212(c) or 212(h) waiver, so he cannot adjust status).      The District Court held that N.J. Stat. Ann.

Pondoc Hernaez v. INS, 244 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 2001) (noncitizen who was drug addict, within meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(ii), not precluded under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C), from petition for review jurisdiction to review removal order because drug addiction is not a criminal offense).

Pazcoguin v. Radcliffe, 292 F.3d 1209, as amended on denial of rehearing and rehearing en banc, 308 F.3d 934(9th Cir.2002) (upholding exclusion based on admission of smoking marijuana in Philippines made during immigration medical examination).      For the medical grounds of inadmissibility, the CDC Technical Instructions for Medical Examination of Aliens state that experimentation, "e.g., a single use of marijuana or other non-prescribed psychoactive substances," is not considered to be drug abuse under INA 212(a)(1).

Matter of PF, 20 I. & N. Dec. 661 (BIA 1993) ("In the absence of any evidentiary showing by the respondent that the weapon was an antique firearm, we find that the conviction record establishes that the respondent used a "firearm," as defined by 18 U.S.C. 921(a) (1988), in the commission of the armed robbery. See United States v. Laroche, 723 F.2d 1541 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1245 (1984).").

United States v. Flores, ___ F.Supp.3d ___ (S.D. Tex. Dec. 10, 2003) (Illegal entrant granted Temporary Protected Status is not illegal alien for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)(A) (illegal alien in possession of a firearm)).

Back to Table of Contents

A state-by-state quick reference to drug laws nationwide can be found at http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?wtm_view=&Group_ID=4516