FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ABDEL DAAS, aka Abdel Razzaq
Mohammad Daas,
No. 06-71898
Petitioner,
v. Agency No.
A075-109-703
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney
OPINION
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted
July 13, 2010—San Francisco, California
Filed August 24, 2010
Before: William A. Fletcher and Milan D. Smith,
Circuit Judges, and James Dale Todd, Senior District Judge.*
Opinion by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.
*The Honorable James Dale Todd, Senior United States District Judge
for the Western District of Tennessee, sitting by designation.
12769
DAAS v. HOLDER 12771
COUNSEL
David J. Cohen, Cohen & Paik LLP, San Francisco, Califor-
nia, for petitioner Abdel Daas.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyln
Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Kristin Edison (on the
brief), Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Justice
Department, Civil Division, for respondent Eric H. Holder Jr.,
Attorney General of the United States.
12772 DAAS v. HOLDER
OPINION
M. SMITH, Circuit Judge:
Abdel Daas petitions for review of a decision of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) finding him ineligible
for cancellation of removal on the ground that Daas was con-
victed of an “aggravated felony” within the meaning of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(43)(B). We hold that Daas’s conviction for distrib-
uting listed chemicals—ephedrine and pseudoephedrine—
with reasonable cause to believe they would be used to manu-
facture methamphetamine, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2), quali-
fies as a “drug trafficking crime” and thus constitutes an
“aggravated felony.” We therefore dismiss the petition for
review.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Daas is a Jordanian citizen who became a lawful permanent
resident in June 1996. On October 23, 1998, Daas was con-
victed under then 21 U.S.C. § 841(d)(2) (now codified at 21
U.S.C. § 841(c)(2)), a Controlled Substances Act (CSA)
offense proscribing anyone from “possess[ing] or distribut[-
ing] a listed chemical knowing, or having reasonable cause to
believe, that the listed chemical will be used to manufacture
a controlled substance.” Daas was supplying large quantities
of over-the-counter decongestants, Mini-Thins and Pseudo
Thins, which contained the “listed chemicals” ephedrine and
pseudoephedrine. Ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are precur-
sor chemicals used to manufacture methamphetamine, a “con-
trolled substance.” See United States v. Daas, 198 F.3d 1167,
1171 (9th Cir. 1999). Following his conviction, the district
court sentenced Daas to 97 months in prison. Id. at 1173.1
1
We remanded for resentencing so that the district court could consider
Dass’s request for a downward departure. Daas was subsequently sen-
tenced to 63 months and served 56.
DAAS v. HOLDER 12773
On November 15, 2002, Daas was charged with removabil-
ity pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) on the ground
that his conviction amounted to an aggravated felony under 8
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B). After the immigration judge (IJ)
pretermitted Daas’s applications for asylum and withholding
of removal, the Board affirmed, holding that Daas was ineligi-
ble for relief because he was convicted of an aggravated fel-
ony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3) (limiting the Attorney
General’s authority to cancel removal of an otherwise deport-
able alien if the alien has been “convicted of an[ ] aggravated
felony”). The Board reasoned that 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B)
includes within its definition of aggravated felony “a drug
trafficking crime (as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).” Relying
on our decision in Cazarez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d
905 (9th Cir. 2004), the Board held that “[a] drug trafficking
crime means any felony punishable under the Controlled Sub-
stances Act [CSA].” Therefore, [Daas’s] conviction under 21
U.S.C. § 841(c)(2), for which he was sentenced to 63 months
in prison, is an aggravated felony under section 101(a)(43)(B)
of the [INA] because it is punishable under the [CSA] and it
is a felony.” Daas filed a timely petition for review.
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
While we generally have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252
to review final removal orders issued by the BIA, we are
without jurisdiction to review a removal order against an alien
removable for having committed an aggravated felony. See 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). Nevertheless, we retain jurisdiction to
determine our jurisdiction; that is, we have jurisdiction to
determine whether an offense is an aggravated felony under
the INA. See Lopez-Jacuinde v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1215, 1217
(9th Cir. 2010). We review the issue de novo.2 Id.
2
The Attorney General insists that we owe deference to the one-judge,
non-precedential, unpublished BIA order in this case holding that 21
U.S.C. § 841(c)(2) is an “aggravated felony” under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(43)(B). Our precedent tells us otherwise. See Estrada-Espinoza
v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1147, 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (“A single-judge, unpub-
lished, non-precedential BIA decision does not satisfy the standards estab-
lished for Chevron deference by the Supreme Court in United States v.
Mead Corp.” (citation omitted)).
12774 DAAS v. HOLDER
DISCUSSION
[1] “Any alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony at
any time after admission is deportable.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). An “aggravated felony” is defined, in
relevant part, as “illicit trafficking in a controlled substance
(as defined in section 802 of Title 21), including a drug traf-
ficking crime (as defined in section 924(c) of Title 18).” 8
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B). Section 924(c)(2), defines “drug
trafficking crime” as “any felony punishable under [1] the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), [2] the
Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 951
et seq.), or [3] chapter 705 of title 46.”3
[2] As noted above, the BIA concluded that 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(c)(2) is an aggravated felony because it is a felony pun-
ishable under the CSA. Daas argues that the BIA misread the
statute. Daas concedes, as he must, that his conviction “is
unquestionably a ‘drug trafficking’ offense under the CSA.”
Indeed, there is no dispute that 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2) is a fel-
ony under the CSA. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2) (listing impris-
onment of not more than twenty years for violation of
§ 841(c)(2)). Cf. Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47, 60 (2006)
(“[A] state offense constitutes a ‘felony punishable under the
Controlled Substances Act’ only if it proscribes conduct pun-
ishable as a felony under that federal law.”).
[3] However, according to Daas, not every felony convic-
tion under the CSA is an aggravated felony. Rather, only felo-
nies under the CSA that “involve[ ] a controlled substance”
qualify as aggravated felonies. And, according to Daas, “it is
undisputed that Mr. Daas was convicted of an offense that did
not involve a controlled substance.” Daas argues that his con-
3
Despite the reference in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B) to section 924(c) of
Title 18, we have recognized that section 924(c)(2) “provides the defini-
tion of ‘drug trafficking crime’ for all of subsection (c).” Lopez-Jacuinde,
600 F.3d at 1218.
DAAS v. HOLDER 12775
viction involves a List I chemical, not a controlled substance.
See 21 U.S.C. § 802(34) (listing ephedrine and pseudoephe-
drine as List I chemicals, defined as “a chemical that is used
in manufacturing a controlled substance in violation of this
subchapter and is important to the manufacture of the con-
trolled substances”). In other words, Daas maintains that a
“drug trafficking crime” must meet two requirements to be
considered an “aggravated felony”: it must be a federal felony
under one of the three acts specified in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2),
and it must constitute illicit trafficking in a controlled sub-
stance.
[4] Daas’s argument is foreclosed by our decisions in
Lopez-Jacuinde, 600 F.3d at 1217, and Rendon v. Mukasey,
520 F.3d 967, 974 (9th Cir. 2008). There, we recognized that
section 1101(a)(43)(B) “has given rise to two possible routes
for a state drug felony to qualify as an aggravated felony.”
Rendon, 520 F.3d at 974 (citing In re Davis, 20 I. & N. Dec.
536, 541-43 (BIA 1992)); see also Lopez-Jacuinde, 600 F.3d
at 1217 (noting that section 1101(a)(43)(B) “provid[es] two
analytic routes” for determining when a state drug felony is
an aggravated felony). First, the offense is an “aggravated fel-
ony” under the “illicit trafficking in a controlled substance”
prong if the crime contains a trafficking element. Lopez-
Jacuinde, 600 F.3d at 1217. Second, the offense is an “aggra-
vated felony” under the “including a drug trafficking crime
(as defined in section 924(c) of Title 18)” prong if it would
be punishable under one of the three federal drug laws listed
in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2). Lopez-Jacuinde, 600 F.3d at 1217.
These two routes are independent. See id. (noting that only the
“drug trafficking crime” route was at issue in that case).
[5] Therefore, to the extent Daas argues that the phrase
“including a drug trafficking crime” only applies to drug traf-
ficking crimes for controlled substances (as opposed to listed
chemicals), our case law is to the contrary. It makes clear that
the two phrases provide independent definitions of “aggra-
12776 DAAS v. HOLDER
vated felony,” and that either definition will suffice. See id.;
Rendon, 520 F.3d at 974.
[6] As the BIA held, and Daas concedes, 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(c)(2) is a felony punishable under one of the three fed-
eral drug laws listed in section 924(c)(2)—the CSA. It there-
fore constitutes a “drug trafficking crime” and is an
aggravated felony, regardless of whether ephedrine and pseu-
doephedrine are “controlled substances.”4
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
4
Indeed, the Supreme Court has noted that a few crimes do not fit neatly
into the definitions of “illicit trafficking in a controlled substance” or
“drug trafficking,” yet “clearly fall within the definitions used by Con-
gress” in § 1101(a)(43)(B). See Lopez, 549 U.S. at 55 n.6 (noting that cer-
tain possession offenses such as possession of cocaine base and recidivist
possession under 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) constitute aggravated felonies,
despite the fact that possession offenses are not ordinarily considered “il-
licit trafficking,” because these crimes fall under the statutes enumerated
in § 924(c)(2)).