Case: 19-60256 Document: 00515789686 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/22/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 22, 2021 No. 19-60256 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Mario Alberto Alejos-Perez, also known as Mario A. Alejos, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals No. A 034 007 696 Before Higginbotham, Smith, and Dennis, Circuit Judges. Jerry E. Smith, Circuit Judge: Texas convicted Mario Alejos-Perez of three offenses. The Attorney General then initiated removal proceedings. The immigration judge (“IJ”) concluded that each of the respective convictions rendered Alejos-Perez removable. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) agreed as to one of them. Granting Alejos-Perez’s petition for review, we reverse and remand. I. Alejos-Perez is a Mexican citizen who committed the three crimes after the United States admitted him as a lawful permanent resident. In Case: 19-60256 Document: 00515789686 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/22/2021 No. 19-60256 2009, 1 he attempted to take a police officer’s weapon. In 2013, he committed theft. In 2018, he possessed a controlled substance. In support of removal, the government claimed that the 2009 and 2013 crimes “involve[d] moral turpitude” that renders Alejos-Perez removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii). The government also claimed that the 2018 crime “relat[ed] to a controlled substance (as defined in [21 U.S.C. § 802]),” which renders him removable under § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). Alejos-Perez moved to terminate the proceeding, contending that the 2009 and 2013 offenses weren’t crimes of moral turpitude and that his 2018 conviction didn’t relate to a controlled substance. The IJ rejected both con- tentions and ordered Alejos-Perez removed to Mexico. The BIA dismissed his subsequent appeal, concluding that the 2018 conviction rendered him removable, but expressly declined to consider whether the 2009 and 2013 convictions were of crimes of moral turpitude. Only the 2018 conviction is at issue here. II. Although we generally lack “jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed a criminal offense” relating to a controlled substance, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)- (2)(C), we retain jurisdiction to review “questions of law,” id. § 1252(a)- (2)(D). Such review is de novo. Luna-Garcia v. Barr, 932 F.3d 285, 288−89 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 157 (2020). “The BIA’s determination that a violation of a state . . . law relates to a controlled substance violation presents a pure question of law.” Vazquez v. Sessions, 885 F.3d 862, 867 (5th Cir. 2018). The government “must connect 1 The dates refer to the respective years of conviction. 2 Case: 19-60256 Document: 00515789686 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/22/2021 No. 19-60256 an element of the alien’s conviction to a drug defined in § 802.” 2 III. A. A state-drug-possession conviction renders an alien removable only if “the elements that make up the state crime of conviction relate to a federally controlled substance.” 3 Courts must therefore (1) identify the “elements that …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals