## Facts

- Rafael Lara-Chacon, a lawful permanent resident admitted in 1970 and a citizen of Mexico, pleaded guilty in Arizona state court in 1999 to five counts of conspiracy to commit money laundering under Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-1003 and 13-2317(A)(1), (C).
- He received a 3.5-year prison sentence.
- The government initiated removal proceedings, charging him with removability based on alleged aggravated-felony and controlled-substance grounds.
- Lara-Chacon admitted his convictions but denied that they qualified as removable offenses.
- The immigration judge found removability by relying solely on the presentence report to characterize the money-laundering conspiracy as connected to marijuana trafficking.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the removal order.

## Issues

1. Whether an Arizona conviction for conspiracy to commit money laundering categorically qualifies as an aggravated felony for “illicit trafficking in a controlled substance” under INA § 101(a)(43)(B).
2. Whether that conviction categorically qualifies as a conviction for violating a law “relating to a controlled substance” under INA § 237(a)(2)(B)(i).
3. Whether, under the modified categorical approach, an immigration court may rely on a presentence report to establish a drug-related factual basis for the conviction.

## Decision

- The petition for review was granted.
- The removal order was vacated and the case remanded.
- The Arizona money-laundering statute was overbroad and did not categorically match either a drug-trafficking aggravated felony or a controlled-substance offense.
- The government failed under the modified categorical approach because the presentence report was not a permissible record-of-conviction document to prove the conviction rested on drug trafficking.

## Legal Principles

- Under the categorical approach, removability turns on whether the elements of the statute of conviction match the generic federal definition; if the statute reaches non-removable conduct, it is not a categorical match.
- Under the modified categorical approach, adjudicators may consult only a limited set of judicially cognizable record-of-conviction materials (e.g., charging document, plea agreement, plea colloquy transcript, or explicit judicial factfinding assented to by the defendant).
- Presentence reports generally are not part of the record of conviction and cannot be used to supply facts (such as drug involvement) not necessarily admitted by the defendant or found by a jury.
- “Illicit trafficking in a controlled substance” requires a conviction corresponding to a felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act.
- A state law is not a controlled-substance ground of removability where the statute covers conduct unrelated to federally defined controlled substances and the permissible record does not establish a controlled-substance basis for the specific conviction.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that Arizona conspiracy to commit money laundering did not, on its elements, establish removability for drug trafficking or a controlled-substance offense, and that the agency could not rely on a presentence report to convert the conviction into a drug-related removable offense; it therefore vacated the removal order and remanded.


Lara-Chacon v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2003)