Garcia v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 487 (7th Cir. Jan. 6, 2005) (jurisdiction limitation triggered by state controlled substances conviction precludes consideration of claim state possession conviction did not constitute aggravated felony; petition for review transferred to district court as habeas corpus petition to determine whether state felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance, which would have been punishable only as a misdemeanor under federal law, qualifies as an aggravated felony).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/041481p.pdf

United States v. Hernandez-Valdovinos, 352 F.3d 1243 (9th Cir. Dec. 17, 2003) (Arizona attempted sale conviction constituted drug trafficking offense for illegal reentry sentence enhancement purposes, under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2, and two months' incarceration constituted "sentence imposed," making appropriate a 12-level increase).

Scipio v. Ashcroft, 2002 WL 2003184 (E.D.N.Y. August 28, 2002) (No. 01 CV 7821(NG) unreported) (New York conviction of Criminal Sale of Marijuana in the Fourth Degree is "clearly a drug offense for which petitioner is removable under INA § 237(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i)."); Copeland v. Ashcroft, 246 F.Supp.2d 183 (W.D.N.Y. February 10, 2003) (New York conviction of Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance constitutes a controlled substance offense, triggering deportation under INA § 237(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i)).

Matter of Esqueda 20 I. & N. Dec 850 (ID 3226; BIA 1994)("Since the language of the exclusion and deportation grounds of the Act relating to drug convictions was significantly broadened by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-570, 100 Stat. 3207, immigration consequences may now result from a conviction under a law relating to a controlled substance that contains no element of mens rea. Lennon v. INS, 527 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1975), distinguished. Matter of Davis, 16 I. & N. Dec. 748 (BIA 1979); Matter of Wolf, 16 I. & N. Dec.

United States v. Thomas, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. January 26, 2004) (federal sentence in controlled substances case vacated and remanded, since guilty plea did not encompass quantity allegation in indictment, and defendant neither admitted possessing more than 50 grams of cocaine base during his plea colloquy, nor knowingly waived right to have jury determine question of quantity beyond reasonable doubt).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0210409p.pdf

Pradith v. Ashcroft, ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (D. Or. 2003) (to be published?) (retroactive application of BIA decision Matter of Yanez, 23 I. & N. Dec. 390 (BIA 2002) violated 14th Amendment Due Process for noncitizen who relied upon Matter of K-V-D-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1163 (BIA 1999) in entering guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance, with belief that his offense was not an aggravated felony and he would be eligible for cancellation of removal)

Gerbier v. Holmes, 280 F.3d 297 (3d Cir.2002) (state narcotics violation is aggravated felony when: 1) crime categorized as felony under state law and involves drug "trafficking"; or 2) state drug violation, regardless of categorization, would be punishable as felony under an analogous federal statute).

Peters v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 302 (5th Cir. August 27, 2004) (Arizona solicitation to transport for sale conviction found "related to" a controlled substance offense, rendering noncitizen deportable under INA 237(a)(2)(B)(i)).

Counsel whose client has a California conviction of possession of paraphernalia, in violation of Health & Safety Code 11364, may distinguish Luu-Le v. INS , 224 F.3d 911 (9th Cir 2000), which held an Arizona possession of drug paraphernalia conviction constituted a controlled substances conviction, by point out that the Arizona offense in that case was structured to eliminate innocent uses of paraphernalia: Arizona has 14 tests to assure that convictions for violation of this statute are in fact drug-related.

Lara-Chacon v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. October 10, 2003) (Arizona racketeering statute is not related to a controlled substance offense despite reference to a definition of racketeering that includes receipt of proceeds from prohibited drugs, as the racketeering offense does not require proof of any underlying drug offense, and noncitizen was not specifically charged with receipt of proceeds related to prohibited drugs).