FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADRIAN GUERRERO-SILVA,
Petitioner, No. 05-77420
v.
Agency No.
A090-098-228
ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney
General, OPINION
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2010*
San Francisco, California
Filed March 31, 2010
Before: Procter Hug, Jr. and Jay S. Bybee, Circuit Judges,
and James S. Gwin,** District Judge.
Opinion by Judge Bybee
*The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
**The Honorable James S. Gwin, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
5059
GUERRERO-SILVA v. HOLDER 5061
COUNSEL
Michael K. Mehr, Law Office of Michael K. Mehr, Santa
Cruz, California, for the petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright & Lindsay L.
Chichester, United States Department of Justice, Civil Divi-
sion, Washington, D.C., for the respondent.
OPINION
BYBEE, Circuit Judge:
Again, we face the question of whether a state conviction
qualifies as a removable offense under federal immigration
law. Adrian Guerrero-Silva argues that his conviction under
California Health and Safety Code § 11361(b) does not qual-
ify as a controlled substance offense under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). We conclude that Guerrero-Silva is
removable and, because Guerrero-Silva does not raise any
other constitutional questions or questions of law, we dismiss
his petition. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see Luu-Le v. INS, 224
F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir. 2000).
I
Guerrero-Silva, a citizen of Mexico, entered the United
States at age two. He later adjusted his status in the United
States to that of a lawful permanent resident. In 2002,
Guerrero-Silva was convicted in California Superior Court of
“furnish[ing], administer[ing], or giv[ing], or offer[ing] to fur-
nish, administer, or give,” marijuana to a minor older than
fourteen. CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 11361(b).
5062 GUERRERO-SILVA v. HOLDER
In 2005, the Department of Homeland Security commenced
removal proceedings against Guerrero by issuing a Notice to
Appear. [AR 346.] The Notice told Guerrero that he was
“subject to removal from the United States pursuant to . . .
Section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act.” [AR 357;] see 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). After a hear-
ing, the Immigration Judge held that Guerrero was removable
and denied Guerrero’s application for cancellation of removal.
The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, and Guerrero
timely appealed.
II
[1] Under the categorical approach outlined in Taylor v.
United States, 495 U.S. 575, 588-89 (1990), we compare the
state statute of conviction, California Health and Safety Code
§ 11361(b), with the federal predicate offense, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), to determine whether the state statute
criminalizes only conduct that falls within the federal offense.
We conclude that the state statute at issue here fits categori-
cally within the federal offense.
[2] California Health and Safety Code § 11361(b) pro-
vides:
Every person 18 years of age or over who furnishes,
administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer,
or give, any marijuana to a minor 14 years of age or
older shall be punished by imprisonment in the state
prison for a period of three, four, or five years.
Section 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) makes removable
[a]ny alien who at any time after admission has been
convicted of a violation of (or a conspiracy or
attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State,
the United States, or a foreign country relating to a
controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of
GUERRERO-SILVA v. HOLDER 5063
Title 21), other than a single offense involving pos-
session for one’s own use of 30 grams or less of
marijuana . . . .
8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). Because federal law lists mari-
juana as a controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(6),
812(b)(1)(C), California Health and Safety Code § 11361(b)
criminalizes only conduct that “relat[es] to a controlled sub-
stance,” Mielewczyk v. Holder, 575 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir.
2009). We recognize that 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) pro-
vides an exception to removability for a “single offense
involving possession for one’s own use of 30 grams or less of
marijuana.” That provision does not apply here, however,
because the actions California Health and Safety Code
§ 11361(b) prohibits—“furnish[ing], administer[ing], or giv-
[ing], or offer[ing] to furnish, administer, or give”—are
actions that, by definition, do not include “possession for
one’s own use.” See WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL
DICTIONARY 923 (1993) (defining furnish to mean “to provide
or supply”); id. at 27 (defining “administer” to mean “to give
or furnish a real or assumed benefit”); id. at 959 (defining
“give” to mean “to confer the ownership of without receiving
a return”).
Guerrero-Silva offers one argument in response. He says
that California Health and Safety Code § 11361(b) includes
solicitation offenses because it prohibits “offers” to “furnish,
administer, or give” marijuana. From this, he argues that he
is not removable because some of our cases have held that
some solicitation offenses are not removable offenses under
the statute. See Coronado-Durazo v. INS, 123 F.3d 1322 (9th
Cir. 1997), and United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 247 F.3d 905
(9th Cir. 2001) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by
U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 cmt. n.4 (2002). In accordance with recent
precedent, we accept Guerrero-Silva’s premise but not his
conclusion.
In Coronado-Durazo, we held that solicitation under Ari-
zona Revised Statute § 13-1002 does not constitute a remov-
5064 GUERRERO-SILVA v. HOLDER
able offense within the meaning of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). 123 F.3d at 1323. We explained: “aliens
who have been convicted of violating laws specifically aimed
at the regulation . . . of controlled substances are deportable,
as are aliens who have been convicted of conspiracy or
attempt to violate such laws.” Id. Arizona’s statute, we held,
did not fit that structure because it “specifie[d] a general
offense applicable to a range of underlying offenses including
but not limited to controlled substance violations.” Id. at
1325. In Rivera-Sanchez, we addressed a different removable
offense: an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B);
247 F.3d at 909. We held that “solicitation offenses are [not]
aggravated felonies.” Rivera-Sanchez, 247 F.3d at 909.
Guerrero-Silva’s reliance on these cases is foreclosed by
our decision in Mielewczyk. In that case, we held that a con-
viction under California Health and Safety Code § 11352(a)
qualified as a removable offense under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) “[b]ecause the statute of conviction by its
own terms is a state law ‘relating to a controlled substance’
. . . .” 575 F.3d at 993. We distinguished Coronado-Durazo
based on the fact that Coronado-Durazo involved a generic
solicitation statute, whereas California Health and Safety
Code § 11352(a) is specifically aimed at controlled substance
offenses. See id. at 996. We held that Rivera-Sanchez did not
apply because it involved aggravated felonies under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(43)(B), not controlled substance offenses under 8
U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). Mielewczyk, 575 F.3d at 997.
[3] As with California Health and Safety Code § 11352(a),
California Health and Safety Code § 11361(b)—which, by its
own terms, is limited to offenses involving marijuana—is a
state law “specifically aimed at controlled substance
offenses.” Mielewczyk, 575 F.3d at 998. As a result, Guerrero-
Silva’s conviction under § 11361(b) renders him removable
under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). Id. Guerrero-Silva’s
removability, in turn, strips this court of further jurisdiction
over his petition for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C).
GUERRERO-SILVA v. HOLDER 5065
III
The petition is DISMISSED.