FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JORGE ROMERO-MILLAN, No. 16-73915 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A077-138-666 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. ERNESTO HERNANDEZ No. 17-72893 CABANILLAS, Petitioner, Agency No. A095-285-170 v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. 2 ROMERO-MILLAN V. BARR MARCO ANTONIO GARCIA- No. 18-71555 PAZ, AKA Garcia Marco A, AKA Garcia Marco Antonio, Agency No. AKA Marco Antonia Garcia, A034-063-749 AKA Marco Antonio Garcia, Petitioner, ORDER CERTIFYING v. QUESTIONS TO ARIZONA SUPREME WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney COURT General, Respondent. Filed May 4, 2020 Before: Richard R. Clifton, John B. Owens, and Mark J. Bennett, Circuit Judges. Order ROMERO-MILLAN V. BARR 3 SUMMARY* Certified Questions to State Court / Immigration The panel certified the following questions of state law to the Arizona Supreme Court: 1. Is Arizona’s possession of drug paraphernalia statute, A.R.S. § 13-3415, divisible as to drug type? 2. Is Arizona’s drug possession statute, A.R.S. § 13-3408, divisible as to drug type? 3. Put another way, is jury unanimity (or concurrence) required as to which drug or drugs listed in A.R.S. § 13-3401(6), (19), (20), or (23) was involved in an offense under either statute? * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. 4 ROMERO-MILLAN V. BARR ORDER The issues for decision in these cases are whether Arizona’s possession of drug paraphernalia statute (A.R.S. § 13-3415) and Arizona’s drug possession statute (A.R.S. § 13-3408) are divisible as to drug type. Resolving these questions will determine the outcome of the pending cases. As such, we respectfully request that the Arizona Supreme Court determine whether, under Arizona law, A.R.S. § 13- 3415 and § 13-3408 are divisible as to drug type. I. Factual and Procedural Background A. Romero-Millan Jorge Romero-Millan, pursuant to a plea agreement, was convicted of possessing or using drug paraphernalia in violation of A.R.S. § 13-3415. Administrative Record (AR) 227–29. While serving his sentence, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) served Romero-Millan with a Notice to Appear, charging him with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), as an alien present in the United States without admission or parole, and § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), as an alien convicted of a controlled substance offense. AR 248–50. At the original removal hearing, Romero-Millan conceded both charges of removal, AR 70, but later withdrew his concession on the second charge of removability following the Supreme Court’s decision in Mellouli v. Lynch, 575 U.S. 798 (2015). AR 78–81. This second charge, for removability as an alien convicted of a controlled substance offense, served as the basis for finding Romero-Millan statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status. AR 56, 250. If A.R.S. § 13-3415 is ROMERO-MILLAN V. BARR 5 divisible he will remain ineligible and the DHS will likely be permitted to permanently remove him from the United States. B. Hernandez Cabanillas and Garcia-Paz Ernesto Hernandez Cabanillas, a native and citizen of Mexico who has lawfully resided in the United States since 2004, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals