Lopez Ventura v. Sessions

Case: 17-60529 Document: 00514689202 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2018

案件：17-60529 文件：00514689202 页：1 提交日期：10/19/2018

No. 17-60529

案号 17-60529

Lyle W. Cayce

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

书记官

MANUEL LOPEZ VENTURA, Also Known as Manuel A. Lopez-Ventura, Petitioner, versus JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

MANUEL LOPEZ VENTURA， 又名 Manuel A. Lopez-Ventura， 申请人， 诉 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III， 美国司法部长， 被申请人。

Appeal from an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

对移民上诉委员会命令的上诉

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

由巡回法官 SMITH、CLEMENT 和 COSTA 审理。

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:

JERRY E. SMITH，巡回法官：

Manuel Lopez Ventura, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic

Manuel Lopez Ventura，多米尼加共和国公民及国民，

and a lawful permanent resident (“LPR”) of the United States, pleaded guilty

且为美国合法永久居民（“LPR”），对持有

of possessing AB-CHMINACA in violation of Louisiana Revised Statutes

AB-CHMINACA 认罪，违反《路易斯安那州修订法规》

§ 40.966(C). After his arrest, but before his conviction, AB-CHMINACA was

§ 40.966(C)。在其被捕后、但定罪前，AB-CHMINACA 被

added to the federal schedules of controlled substances. After his conviction,

列入联邦管制物质附表。定罪后，

Lopez Ventura traveled to the Dominican Republic. Upon his return, he

Lopez Ventura 前往多米尼加共和国。返美后，他

applied for admission as an LPR. But the Department of Homeland Security

以 LPR 身份申请入境。但国土安全部

charged him with being inadmissible under the Immigration and Nationality

依据《移民与国籍法》指控其因路易斯安那州定罪而

Case: 17-60529 Document: 00514689202 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2018

案件：17-60529 文件：00514689202 页：2 提交日期：10/19/2018

No. 17-60529

案号 17-60529

Act (“INA”) because of the Louisiana conviction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)-

不可入境（“INA”）。见 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)-

(A)(i)(II). Lopez Ventura denied the charge, relying on the fact that

(A)(i)(II)。Lopez Ventura 否认该指控，依据是

AB-CHMINACA was not a controlled substance at the time of his arrest. The

AB-CHMINACA 在其被捕时并非管制物质。

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) ultimately found him inadmissible, rea-

移民上诉委员会（“BIA”）最终认定其不可入境，理

soning that AB-CHMINACA was a controlled substance on the date of his con-

由是 AB-CHMINACA 在其定

viction. Because the application of § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) to Lopez Ventura is

罪之日为管制物质。由于将 § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) 适用于 Lopez Ventura

impermissibly retroactive, we grant the petition for review, reverse the order

构成不被允许的溯及适用，我们准予复审申请，撤销 BIA

of the BIA, and remand for the BIA to determine whether Lopez Ventura was

的命令，并发回 BIA 裁定 Lopez Ventura 是

convicted of possessing marihuana or, instead, AB-CHMINACA.

被判持有大麻还是 AB-CHMINACA。

I.

I.

In 2014, Lopez Ventura was arrested for possessing cigarillo cigars and

2014年，Lopez Ventura 因持有雪茄烟及

AB-CHMINACA, a synthetic cannabinoid. In February 2015, he was charged

AB-CHMINACA（一种合成大麻素）被捕。2015年2月，他被指控

with possession of a controlled substance and drug paraphernalia in violation

持有管制物质及吸毒用具，分别违反

of Louisiana Revised Statutes §§ 40:966(C) and 40:1023, respectively. On

《路易斯安那州修订法规》§§ 40:966(C) 和 40:1023。2015年

April 16, 2015, he pleaded guilty of possessing marihuana and drug parapher-

2015年4月16日，他认罪持有大麻和毒品用具——

nalia. At the time of the arrest, AB-CHMINACA was not a federally controlled

具认罪。被捕时，AB-CHMINACA 并非联邦管制

substance. See 21 C.F.R. § 1308.11 (effective Mar. 7, 2014, to Jan. 29, 2015).

物质。见 21 C.F.R. § 1308.11（2014年3月7日至2015年1月29日生效）。

Yet by the time he was charged and pleaded guilty, the Drug Enforcement

然而至其被指控并认罪时，缉毒

Administration had added AB-CHMINACA to the controlled substance sched-

局已依据 21 U.S.C. § 811(h) 的授权将 AB-CHMINACA 列入管制物质

ules as authorized by 21 U.S.C. § 811(h). 1

依据《美国法典》第21编第811(h)条授权的规则。1

An alien convicted of violating any state law relating to a federally

外国人因违反任何与联邦管制物质相关的州法律而被定罪的，

controlled substance is inadmissible as an LPR. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)-

作为 LPR 不可入境。见 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)-

(A)(i)(II). Lopez Ventura claimed he was admissible because his Louisiana

(A)(i)(II)。Lopez Ventura 主张其可入境，因为其路易斯安那州

convictions concerned AB-CHMINACA, which was not a controlled substance

定罪涉及 AB-CHMINACA，而该物质在其犯罪之日并非管制物质

1 See 80 Fed. Reg. 5042–01 (Jan. 30, 2015) (adding AB-CHMINACA to the schedule of controlled substances); 21 C.F.R. § 1308.11(h)(29) (effective Jan. 30, 2015, to Mar. 19, 2015); § 1308.11(h)(21) (effective Mar. 20, 2015, to July 16, 2015).

1 见 80 Fed. Reg. 5042–01（2015年1月30日）（将 AB-CHMINACA 列入管制物质附表）；21 C.F.R. § 1308.11(h)(29)（2015年1月30日至2015年3月19日生效）；§ 1308.11(h)(21)（2015年3月20日至2015年7月16日生效）。

2

2

Case: 17-60529 Document: 00514689202 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/19/2018

案件：17-60529 文件：00514689202 页：3 提交日期：10/19/2018

No. 17-60529

案号 17-60529

on the date of his offense.

。

The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied the motion, reasoning that

移民法官（“IJ”）驳回该动议，理由是在 Lopez Ventura 定

AB-CHMINACA was a controlled substance on the date of Lopez Ventura’s

罪之日 AB-CHMINACA 为管制物质。

conviction. Lopez Ventura moved to reconsider and requested relief from

Lopez Ventura 申请复议并请求依据 INA 免于

removal under the INA. 2 The IJ denied that motion, finding that Lopez Ven-

遣返。2 IJ 驳回该动议，认定 Lopez Ven-

tura had actually been convicted of possessing marihuana—not

tura 实际上是被判持有大麻——而非

AB-CHMINACA—so the drug he possessed had always been a controlled sub-

AB-CHMINACA——因此其所持有的毒品一直是管制物

stance. The IJ then concluded, in a somewhat self-contradictory fashion, that

质。IJ 随后以某种自相矛盾的方式认定，

Lopez Ventura was not eligible for § 1182(h) relief because he had been con-

Lopez Ventura 不符合 § 1182(h) 救济资格，因为他曾被

victed of possessing AB-CHMINACA, not marihuana.

判持有 AB-CHMINACA，而非大麻。

Lopez Ventura appealed to the BIA with the same arguments. But for

Lopez Ventura 以相同论点向 BIA 上诉。但

the first time, he explicitly invoked the presumption against retroactivity,

他首次明确援引反溯及适用推定，

citing Vartelas v. Holder, 566 U.S. 257 (2012). The BIA affirmed. It concluded

引用 Vartelas v. Holder, 566 U.S. 257 (2012)。BIA 维持原裁定。其认定

that the relevant date for purposes of § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) was the date of

就 § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) 而言，相关日期为

conviction and that AB-CHMINACA had been a controlled substance when

定罪之日，且 AB-CHMINACA 在

Lopez Ventura was convicted. It further held that Lopez Ventura had waived

Lopez Ventura 被定罪时为管制物质。其进一步认定 Lopez Ventura 已放弃

his claim that § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) was being applied in a retroactive manner.

其关于 § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) 被以溯及方式适用的主张。

Yet the BIA never resolved whether Lopez Ventura had been convicted of

然而 BIA 从未裁定 Lopez Ventura 是否系被判

possessing marihuana instead of AB-CHMINACA.

持有大麻而非 AB-CHMINACA。

Lopez Ventura petitions for review, asserting that the application of

Lopez Ventura 申请复审，主张将

§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) to his case is retroactive because it attaches new legal

§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) 适用于其案件具有溯及力，因为该条款对其持有

consequences to his possession of AB-CHMINACA. And, as Lopez Ventura

AB-CHMINACA 附加了新的法律后果。并且，如 Lopez Ventura

posits, there is nothing in the statute to overcome the presumption against

所述，法规中没有任何内容足以推翻反

retroactivity. The government replies that Lopez Ventura has waived a critical

溯及适用推定。政府答复称 Lopez Ventura 已放弃其上诉中

2 See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) (providing that the Attorney General may waive inadmissi- bility for certain offenses involving simple possession of thirty grams of marihuana). Accord Martinez v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 532, 541–42 (5th Cir. 2008).

2 见 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h)（规定司法部长可以豁免涉及简单持有三十克大麻的某些罪行的不可入境性）。同见 Martinez v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 532, 541–42 (5th Cir. 2008)。

3

3

Case: 17-60529 Document: 00514689202 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/19/2018

案件：17-60529 文件：00514689202 页：4 提交日期：10/19/2018

No. 17-60529

案号 17-60529

part of his argument on appeal. Moreover, it insists that because the statutory

论点的关键部分。此外，其坚持认为，由于法定

text, the categorical approach, and policies undergirding the INA focus on

文本、类别化方法以及支撑 INA 的政策均聚焦于

convictions, the court must consider whether the substance was controlled on

定罪，法院必须考虑该物质在

the date of conviction, not commission. Finally, the government avers that

定罪之日而非实施之日是否为管制物质。最后，政府主张

§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) is explicitly retroactive in any event.

§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) 无论如何均明确具有溯及力。

II.

II.

We review the BIA’s rulings of law de novo and findings of fact for “sub-

我们对 BIA 的法律裁定进行重新审查，对事实认定按“实

stantial evidence.” Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001).

质性证据”标准审查。Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001)。

We consider the IJ’s decision only “to the extent that it influenced the BIA.”

我们仅在“其影响了 BIA”的范围内考虑 IJ 的决定。

Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863 (5th Cir. 2009). The BIA’s order was

Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863 (5th Cir. 2009)。BIA 的命令由

entered by a single member of the BIA and was not precedential. 3 Because the

BIA 单一成员作出，不具有先例效力。3 由于该

order therefore lacks the force of law, it is entitled only to Skidmore deference. 4

命令因此缺乏法律效力，其仅享有 Skidmore 尊重。4

“Even so, it will be examined closely for its power to persuade.” Dhuka,

“即便如此，仍将仔细审查其说服力。”Dhuka,

716 F.3d at 156.

716 F.3d at 156。

The BIA ruled that Lopez Ventura had waived his claim that applying

BIA 裁定 Lopez Ventura 已放弃其关于将

§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) to his Louisiana conviction would be impermissibly retro-

§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) 适用于其路易斯安那州定罪将构成不被允许的溯

active. We disagree. The presumption against retroactivity is merely a tool of

及适用的主张。我们不同意。反溯及适用推定仅是

statutory interpretation, not a separate claim for relief. See Falek v. Gonzales,

法律解释的工具，而非独立的救济请求。见 Falek v. Gonzales,

475 F.3d 285, 290 (5th Cir. 2007). From the start, Lopez Ventura has

475 F.3d 285, 290 (5th Cir. 2007)。从一开始，Lopez Ventura 就

consistently maintained that § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), properly construed, does

一贯主张，经正确解释的 § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II)

not apply where the crime involves a substance not controlled on the date of

不适用于犯罪涉及在实施之日并非管制物质的

commission. Although he did not expressly invoke the presumption against

情形。尽管他直至向 BIA 上诉时才明确援引反溯及适用

3 See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(6)(ii) (providing that cases may be assigned to three-member panels if the cases present a need to establish precedent); see also Dhuka v. Holder, 716 F.3d 149, 155 (5th Cir. 2013) (“The regulation does not recognize single-member decisions as hav- ing precedential effect . . . .”).

3 见 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(6)(ii)（规定若案件需要确立先例，可分配给三人合议庭）；另见 Dhuka v. Holder, 716 F.3d 149, 155 (5th Cir. 2013)（“该法规不承认单一成员决定具有先例效力……”）。

4 See Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944); Dhuka v. Holder, 716 F.3d 149, 155 (5th Cir. 2013).

4 见 Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944)；Dhuka v. Holder, 716 F.3d 149, 155 (5th Cir. 2013)。

4

4

Case: 17-60529 Document: 00514689202 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/19/2018

案件：17-60529 文件：00514689202 页：5 提交日期：10/19/2018

No. 17-60529

案号 17-60529

retroactivity until his appeal to the BIA, Lopez Ventura has always advocated

推定，Lopez Ventura 始终主张

an interpretation of the INA that dovetails with that presumption. 5 Indeed, to

对 INA 作与该推定相吻合的解释。5 事实上，

say that § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) should not apply where the substance became

主张 § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) 不应适用于该物质在

controlled after the criminal act is to claim that such application is improperly

犯罪行为之后才成为管制物质的情形，就是主张此种适用构成不当

retroactive. 6

溯及适用。6

Even if Lopez Ventura did not clearly present his retroactivity claim

即使 Lopez Ventura 未在 IJ 面前清晰提出其溯及适用主张，

before the IJ, the argument is still preserved via a petition for review. It is

该论点仍通过复审申请得以保留。既定

settled practice that to be considered on review, an issue must generally have

做法是，要在复审中予以考虑，某一问题通常必须已

been “pressed or passed upon” in the tribunal a quo. 7 Though the BIA found

在下级裁判机构中被“提出或裁断”。7 尽管 BIA 认定

that Lopez Ventura had waived his retroactivity claim, it held that the relevant

Lopez Ventura 已放弃其溯及适用主张，但其裁定 § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) 下的相关

inquiry under § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) is whether a substance was controlled on

根据§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II)的询问是，某物质在以下日期是否属于受管制物质：

the date of conviction. In doing so, the BIA plainly rejected Lopez Ventura’s

定罪之日是否为管制物质。BIA 以此明确拒绝了 Lopez Ventura

reading of the statute and implicitly determined that applying § 1182(a)(2)-

对法规的解读，并隐含裁定将 § 1182(a)(2)-

(A)(i)(II) to him was not impermissibly retroactive. Because the BIA therefore

(A)(i)(II) 适用于其并非不被允许的溯及适用。由于 BIA 因此

passed upon Lopez Ventura’s claim, we may consider his argument on petition

裁断了 Lopez Ventura 的主张，我们可以在复审申请中

for review.

考虑其论点。

III.

III.

The presumption against retroactive legislation arises in a “case that

反溯及立法推定产生于“涉及在诉讼事件之后颁布的联邦

implicates a federal statute enacted after the events in suit.” Landgraf v. USI

法规的案件”。Landgraf v. USI

5 Citing Falek, 475 F.3d at 289−90, the government maintains that retroactivity is an issue that must be exhausted. But unlike Lopez Ventura, the petitioner in Falek wholly failed to challenge the applicability of the statute before the BIA. Id. at 288.

5 政府援引 Falek, 475 F.3d at 289−90，主张溯及适用是一个必须用尽的问题。但与 Lopez Ventura 不同，Falek 中的申请人完全未在 BIA 面前质疑该法规的适用性。Id. at 288。

6 For similar reasons, the government is wrong to insist that Lopez Ventura has waived much of his argument in this petition. According to the government, Lopez Ventura solely challenges whether the BIA’s decision was impermissibly retroactive—not whether the BIA erred in focusing on the date of conviction. But those arguments are two sides of the same coin. To assert that the BIA’s ruling was wrongly retroactive is to contend that the date of conviction should not have controlled.

6 出于类似理由，政府坚持 Lopez Ventura 已放弃其在本复审申请中的大部分论点，这是错误的。据政府称，Lopez Ventura 仅质疑 BIA 的决定是否构成不被允许的溯及适用——而非 BIA 聚焦于定罪之日是否错误。但这些论点是同一枚硬币的两面。主张 BIA 的裁定错误地具有溯及力，就是主张定罪之日不应起决定作用。

7 McGoldrick v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 309 U.S. 430, 434 (1940); accord 19 JAMES WM. MOORE ET AL., MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE ¶ 205.05 (3d ed. 2018).

7 McGoldrick v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 309 U.S. 430, 434 (1940)；同见 19 JAMES WM. MOORE ET AL., MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE ¶ 205.05（第3版 2018）。

5

5

Case: 17-60529 Document: 00514689202 Page: 6 Date Filed: 10/19/2018

案件：17-60529 文件：00514689202 页：6 提交日期：10/19/2018

No. 17-60529

案号 17-60529

Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994). That presumption is “deeply rooted in

Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994)。该推定“深深植根于

our jurisprudence, and embodies a legal doctrine centuries older than our

我们的判例法，并体现了一项比我们的共和国还要早数个世纪的

Republic.” Id. at 265. Accordingly, “the legal effect of conduct should ordin-

法律原则。”Id. at 265。因此，“行为的法律效果通常

arily be assessed under the law that existed when the conduct took place.” 8

应依据行为发生时存在的法律来评估。”8

Congress may enact retroactive legislation if it does not offend a specific con-

国会可以制定溯及性立法，只要不触犯特定的

stitutional prohibition. Id. at 267–68. But the Court requires that Congress

宪法禁令。Id. at 267–68。但法院要求国会

legislate with a clear statement of retroactivity. Id.

立法时须有明确的溯及适用声明。Id.

To determine whether a statute is impermissibly retroactive, we must

为确定某法规是否构成不被允许的溯及适用，我们必须

ask first “whether Congress has expressly prescribed the statute’s proper

首先问“国会是否明确规定了该法规的适当

reach” and second “whether the new statute would have retroactive effect.” Id.

适用范围”，其次问“新法规是否会产生溯及效果。”Id.

at 280. That framework also applies when determining the retroactive effect

at 280。该框架同样适用于确定法规的溯及

of a regulation. 9

效果。9

A.

A.

The standard for finding a clear directive of retroactivity “is a demanding

认定明确溯及指令的标准“要求很高”。

one.” I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 316 (2001). The statute must contain

I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 316 (2001)。法规必须包含

wholly unambiguous language that it applies retroactively. 10 For instance, a

完全明确的语言表明其具有溯及力。10 例如，

definition of “aggravated felony” that “applies expressly to ‘convictions entered

“加重重罪”的定义“明确适用于‘在法规颁布日期之前、当日或之后作出的定罪’”，

before, on, or after’ the statute’s enactment date” is sufficient to overcome the

足以推翻该推定。11 但法规的生效日期或全面性可能无法

presumption. 11 But a statute’s effective date or comprehensive nature may not

推定。11 但法规的生效日期或全面性可能不

rebut the presumption. Id. at 316–18.

同上，第316–18页。

8 Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 265. (quoting Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 817, 855 (1990) (Scalia, J., concurring)).

8 Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 265.（引述Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 817, 855 (1990)（Scalia大法官协同意见））。

9 See Perez Pimentel v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 2008); Kankamalage v. I.N.S., 335 F.3d 858, 862–63 (9th Cir. 2003).

9 参见Perez Pimentel v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 2008)；Kankamalage v. I.N.S., 335 F.3d 858, 862–63 (9th Cir. 2003)。

10 St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 316 (quoting Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 328 n.4 (1997)) (holding that the statutory language must be “so clear that it [can] sustain only one interpre- tation” favoring retroactivity).

10 St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 316（引述Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 328 n.4 (1997)）（认定法规语言必须“如此明确，以至于[能够]仅维持一种解释”以支持溯及力）。

11 Vartelas, 566 U.S. at 267 (cleaned up) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)).

11 Vartelas, 566 U.S. at 267（已清理）（引述8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)）。

6

6

Case: 17-60529 Document: 00514689202 Page: 7 Date Filed: 10/19/2018

案件：17-60529 文件：00514689202 第7页 归档日期：10/19/2018

No. 17-60529

第17-60529号

The government attempts to sidestep Lopez Ventura’s retroactivity

政府试图回避Lopez Ventura的溯及力

claim by insisting that no statute or regulation was ever altered to apply to

主张，坚称没有任何法规或规章曾被修改以适用于

pre-enactment conduct. Not true: The list of controlled substances in the Code

颁布前的行为。并非如此：《联邦法规汇编》中的管制物质清单

of Federal Regulations was changed to include AB-CHMINACA only after

是在Lopez Ventura被指控持有AB-CHMINACA之后

Lopez Ventura allegedly had possessed it. The timing of that change raises at

才被修改以将其列入的。该修改的时间点至少

least the specter of retroactivity, causing us to consider whether the addition

引发了溯及力的疑虑，使我们不得不考虑AB-CHMINACA的增列

of AB-CHMINACA was meant to apply retroactively.

是否意在具有溯及力。

There is no express statement of retroactivity in either the DEA’s final

在DEA的最终命令、12 该规章13 或授权颁布

order, 12 the regulation, 13 or the statutes authorizing the promulgation of the

命令、12 该规章、13 或授权颁布该规章的制定法

controlled-substance schedules. 14 Although the final order states it shall be

管制物质附表。14 尽管最终命令规定其应

“effective January 30, 2015,” the mere presence of an effective date is insuffi-

“自2015年1月30日起生效”，但仅有生效日期不足以

cient to establish retroactivity. See id. at 317. If the statute was meant to

确立溯及力。参见同上，第317页。如果法规意在

extend retroactively, Congress could have specified that the addition of a drug

具有溯及力，国会本可明确规定某药物的增列

would apply to convictions regardless of when the substance became controlled.

将适用于定罪，无论该物质何时成为管制物质。

Congress has not done so here.

国会在此并未如此规定。

The government yet contends that the Anti-Drug Abuse Act (“ADAA”)

政府还主张，《反毒品滥用法》（“ADAA”）

contains an explicit statement of retroactivity for § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). In

包含针对§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II)的明确溯及力声明。在

1986, the ADAA amended § 1182’s provisions on aliens convicted of controlled-

1986年，ADAA修订了§ 1182关于被判犯有管制

substance crimes. In doing so, the ADAA stated that such amendments “shall

物质犯罪的外国人的条款。在修订时，ADAA规定此类修正“应

apply to convictions occurring before, on, or after the date of the enactment of

适用于在本条颁布日期之前、当日或之后发生的定罪。”

this section.” Pub. L. 99-570, § 1751(c), 100 Stat. 3207-47 (1986). But that

Pub. L. 99-570, § 1751(c), 100 Stat. 3207-47 (1986)。但该

language is irrelevant. Though it establishes that the 1986 amendments were

语言无关紧要。尽管它确立了1986年修正案

meant to apply retroactively, it says nothing about whether future additions to

意在具有溯及力，但它对管制物质附表的未来增列

12 80 Fed. Reg. 5042 (Jan. 30, 2015).

12 80 Fed. Reg. 5042（2015年1月30日）。

13 21 C.F.R. § 1308.11(h)(29) (effective Jan. 30, 2015, to Mar. 19, 2015); id. § 1308.11- (h)(21) (effective Mar. 20, 2015, to July 16, 2015).

13 21 C.F.R. § 1308.11(h)(29)（2015年1月30日至2015年3月19日生效）；同上§ 1308.11-(h)(21)（2015年3月20日至2015年7月16日生效）。

14 See generally 21 U.S.C. § 811 (authorizing the classification of controlled sub- stances); 21 U.S.C. § 812 (listing the schedules of controlled substances).

14 参见21 U.S.C. § 811（授权对管制物质进行分类）；21 U.S.C. § 812（列明管制物质附表）。

7

7

Case: 17-60529 Document: 00514689202 Page: 8 Date Filed: 10/19/2018

案件：17-60529 文件：00514689202 第8页 归档日期：10/19/2018

No. 17-60529

第17-60529号

the controlled-substance schedules would have retroactive effect. In the

是否具有溯及力只字未提。在

absence of any unambiguous language to the contrary, we therefore presume

缺乏任何明确相反语言的情况下，我们因此推定

that the addition of AB-CHMINACA was not meant to operate retroactively.

AB-CHMINACA的增列并非意在具有溯及力。

Nevertheless, the government posits that the statutory language, cate-

然而，政府提出，法规语言、分类

gorical approach, and basic policy considerations overcome the presumption

方法及基本政策考量足以推翻反对溯及力的

against retroactivity. As the government observes, § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II)

推定。正如政府所观察到的，§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II)

speaks in terms of convictions: “[A]ny alien convicted of” violating a state law

以定罪为表述方式：“任何外国人被判犯有”违反与管制物质有关的州法律的

relating to a controlled substance is inadmissible. (Emphasis added.) Because

行为，均不可入境。（着重号为原文所加。）因为

the INA “asks what offense the noncitizen was convicted of, not what acts he

INA“询问的是非公民被判犯有何种罪行，而非他

committed,” courts employ the “categorical approach” when construing the

实施了何种行为”，法院在解释该法规时采用“分类

statute. 15 That approach requires courts to look “not to the facts of the partic-

方法”。15 该方法要求法院“不看特定

ular prior case, but instead to whether the state statute defining the crime of

先前案件的事实，而是看界定定罪罪行的州法规

conviction . . . necessarily involved facts equating to the generic federal

……是否必然涉及等同于一般联邦

offense.” Moncrieffe, 569 U.S. at 190 (cleaned up). In sum, the categorical

罪行的事实。”Moncrieffe, 569 U.S. at 190（已清理）。总之，分类

approach reflects Congress’s intent to “predicate[] deportations on convictions,

方法反映了国会的意图，即“以定罪而非行为

not conduct.” Mellouli v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 1980, 1986 (2015) (internal quota-

作为驱逐的前提”。Mellouli v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 1980, 1986 (2015)（内部引文

tions omitted).

省略）。

According to the government, to hold that the addition of a controlled

据政府称，若认定管制物质的增列

substance does not apply retroactively would blow a hole through the otherwise

不具有溯及力，将在原本结构良好的分类方法上

well-structured categorical approach. As the government reasons, if courts

炸出一个大洞。政府的推理是，如果法院

must ask when the petitioner actually committed the crime, then they will go

必须询问申请人实际实施犯罪的时间，那么法院将

beyond comparing the elements of an offense and will look at the facts of con-

超越比较罪行要素的范围，转而审视定罪的

viction. And if courts ever engage in that inquiry, the government fears that

事实。而如果法院一旦进行此种审查，政府担心

aliens would have every incentive to contest the timing of the offense. Worse,

外国人将有充分动机对犯罪时间提出争议。更糟的是，

conviction records may lack information on the date of commission, forcing the

定罪记录可能缺乏关于实施日期的信息，迫使

15 Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184, 191 (2013) (citation omitted); see also Omari v. Gonzales, 419 F.3d 303, 307 (5th Cir. 2005).

15 Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184, 191 (2013)（引文省略）；另参见Omari v. Gonzales, 419 F.3d 303, 307 (5th Cir. 2005)。

8

8

Case: 17-60529 Document: 00514689202 Page: 9 Date Filed: 10/19/2018

案件：17-60529 文件：00514689202 第9页 归档日期：10/19/2018

No. 17-60529

第17-60529号

BIA to conduct a mini-trial to identify the date of commission. The categorical

BIA进行小型审判以确定实施日期。政府断言，分类

approach, avers the government, would be reduced to ashes.

方法将化为灰烬。

Standing alone, the categorical approach does not refute the presump-

单独来看，分类方法并不能反驳反对溯及力的

tion against retroactivity because it is only an expression of legislative intent.

推定，因为它仅是立法意图的表达。

It exists merely because Congress has enacted statutes that call for such an

它的存在仅仅是因为国会颁布了要求采用此种

approach. Though the categorical approach is longstanding, 16 it is not abso-

方法的法规。尽管分类方法由来已久，16 但它并非绝对，

lute, and there are circumstances in which statutory language requires devi-

且在某些情况下法规语言要求偏离

ating from that approach. See Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29, 36–39 (2009).

该方法。参见Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29, 36–39 (2009)。

Conversely, the presumption against retroactivity applies absolutely as

相反，反对溯及力的推定作为规范性和描述性

both a normative and descriptive canon of construction. 17 Embodying “a legal

解释准则绝对适用。17 它体现了“比我们共和国还要古老几个世纪的

doctrine centuries older than our Republic,” the presumption is grounded in

法律原则”，其根基在于

numerous constitutional provisions from the Ex Post Facto Clause to the Due

从溯及既往条款到正当

Process Clause. Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 265–66. It demands that in order to

程序条款的众多宪法规定。Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 265–66。它要求，

have retroactive effect, all congressional expressions—including the categori-

为具有溯及力，所有国会表述——包括分类

cal approach—contain unambiguous statutory language. 18 Hence, though

方法——都必须包含明确的法规语言。18 因此，尽管

Congress intended that the categorical approach apply generally, Congress

国会意图分类方法普遍适用，国会

must also clearly express that deportations are predicated on convictions—not

也必须明确表述驱逐是以定罪——而非

conduct—even where doing so works a retroactive effect. 19 Because this stat-

行为——为前提，即使这样做会产生溯及效力。19 由于该法

ute and accompanying regulation contain no such statement, the presumption

规及 accompanying 规章不包含此类声明，该推定

16 Moncrieffe, 569 U.S. at 191 (noting that the categorical approach “has a long pedi- gree in our Nation’s immigration law”).

16 Moncrieffe, 569 U.S. at 191（指出分类方法“在我国移民法中有着悠久的谱系”）。

17 Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 286 (“The presumption against statutory retroactivity is founded upon sound considerations of general policy and practice, and accords with long held and widely shared expectations about the usual operation of legislation.”).

17 Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 286（“反对法定溯及力的推定建立在关于一般政策和实践的合理考量之上，并与关于立法通常运作方式的长期持有且广泛共享的期望相一致。”）。

18 See Vartelas, 566 U.S. at 266; St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 315–16; Lindh, 521 U.S. at 324– 25; Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 270, 273; United States v. Heth, 3 Cranch 399, 413 (1806); see also Garrido-Morato v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 319, 322 (5th Cir. 2007); Ojeda-Terrazas v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 292, 300 (5th Cir. 2002).

18 参见Vartelas, 566 U.S. at 266；St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 315–16；Lindh, 521 U.S. at 324–25；Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 270, 273；United States v. Heth, 3 Cranch 399, 413 (1806)；另参见Garrido-Morato v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 319, 322 (5th Cir. 2007)；Ojeda-Terrazas v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 292, 300 (5th Cir. 2002)。

19 Cf. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 317 (holding that the comprehensive nature of an immigra- tion law is insufficient to overcome the presumption).

19 比较St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 317（认定移民法的全面性不足以推翻该推定）。

9

9

Case: 17-60529 Document: 00514689202 Page: 10 Date Filed: 10/19/2018

案件：17-60529 文件：00514689202 第10页 归档日期：10/19/2018

No. 17-60529

第17-60529号

against retroactivity is not overcome.

反对溯及力的推定未被推翻。

Additionally, the government’s concerns regarding the continued viabil-

此外，政府关于分类方法持续可行性的担忧

ity of the categorical approach are likely overblown. Although the list of con-

很可能被夸大了。尽管管制物质清单

trolled substances must often expand to accommodate criminals’ ingenuity,

必须经常扩充以应对犯罪分子的创造力，

most substances have already been controlled for years. 20 And the date of the

但大多数物质已被管制多年。20 而犯罪

offense will almost always appear in the charging document, which can be con-

日期几乎总是出现在起诉文件中，该文件可在

sidered under the categorical approach. Thus, the number of situations imply-

分类方法下予以考虑。因此，暗示溯及力的情形

cating retroactivity are probably few. A finding of “no retroactivity” therefore

可能很少。因此，“无溯及力”的认定

is unlikely to disturb the future operation of the categorical approach.

不太可能扰乱分类方法的未来运作。

B.

B.

Where a statute or regulation contains no express command of retro-

当法规或规章不包含明确的溯及力

activity, we must decide whether it would have retroactive effect. See id.

命令时，我们必须判断其是否具有溯及效力。参见同上

at 280. That “demands a commonsense, functional judgment about whether

第280页。这“要求作出常识性的、功能性的判断，即

the new provision attaches new legal consequences to events completed before

新条款是否对在其颁布之前已完成的事件

its enactment.” St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 321 (internal quotations omitted). A

附加新的法律后果。”St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 321（内部引文省略）。

statute operates retroactively when it “would impair rights a party possessed

当法规“会损害当事人在行为时享有的权利、增加当事人对过去行为的责任，或对已完成交易

when he acted, increase a party’s liability for past conduct, or impose new

施加新义务”时，即具有溯及效力。

duties with respect to transactions already completed.” Landgraf, 511 U.S.

Landgraf, 511 U.S.

at 280. “[F]amiliar considerations of fair notice, reasonable reliance, and

第280页。“[关]于公平通知、合理信赖和

settled expectations” help guide the analysis. Id. at 270.

既定期望的熟悉考量”有助于指导分析。同上，第270页。

Lopez Ventura contends that because he possessed AB-CHMINACA

Lopez Ventura主张，由于他在AB-CHMINACA

before it was added to the schedules, charging him with inadmissibility under

被列入附表之前持有该物质，依据INA指控其

the INA attaches a new legal consequence to his possession. The government

不可入境，对其持有行为附加了新的法律后果。政府

responds that the statute focuses on convictions, not the underlying conduct.

回应称，法规关注的是定罪，而非 underlying 行为。

20 See, e.g., 21 C.F.R. § 1308.11(b) (listing all “opiates, including their isomers, esters, ethers, salts, and salts of isomers, esters and ethers”).

20 参见，例如，21 C.F.R. § 1308.11(b)（列明所有“阿片类物质，包括其异构体、酯类、醚类、盐类及异构体、酯类和醚类的盐类”）。

10

10

Case: 17-60529 Document: 00514689202 Page: 11 Date Filed: 10/19/2018

案件：17-60529 文件：00514689202 第11页 归档日期：10/19/2018

No. 17-60529

第17-60529号

Thus, the government insists that no retroactivity occurs where an addition to

因此，政府坚持认为，将联邦附表的增列适用于在该增列之后被定罪的人，

the federal schedules is applied to someone convicted after that addition.

不产生溯及力问题。

Moreover, the government maintains, Lopez Ventura could have sought to

此外，政府主张，Lopez Ventura本可通过谈判达成

avoid the consequences of the addition of AB-CHMINACA by negotiating a

有利的认罪协议或进入审判，来避免AB-CHMINACA增列

favorable plea agreement or proceeding to trial.

所带来的后果。

The government’s position is untenable, given that the Court has already

政府的立场站不住脚，因为法院已在Vartelas案中

considered and rejected very similar reasoning in Vartelas. That case involved

审议并驳回了非常相似的推理。该案涉及

a statutory change that precluded foreign travel by LPRs with certain con-

一项法定修改，禁止有某些定罪的LPR出国旅行。

victions. Vartelas, 566 U.S. at 260. Although the petitioner had been convicted

Vartelas, 566 U.S. at 260。尽管申请人是在

before the statutory amendment, he was denied reentry when he traveled after

法定修正案之前被定罪的，但他在修正案之后旅行时被拒绝重新入境。

the amendment. Id. at 260–61. Dissenting, Justice Scalia maintained that

同上，第260–61页。Scalia大法官在异议中主张，

retroactivity should turn on “the activity a statute is intended to regulate.” Id.

溯及力应取决于“法规意图规范的活动”。同上

at 277 (Scalia, J., dissenting). Because the statute focused on “reentry into the

第277页（Scalia大法官异议意见）。由于该法规关注的是“重新进入

United States,” Justice Scalia found no retroactive application because the

美国”，Scalia大法官认定不存在溯及适用，因为该

petitioner attempted to reenter after the statutory change. Id. at 277–78.

申请人在法律变更后试图重新入境。Id. at 277–78。

Moreover, Justice Scalia noted that the petitioner could have avoided the con-

此外，Scalia大法官指出，申请人本可以避免该制定法修正案的

sequences of the statutory amendment “by simply remaining in the United

后果，“只需留在美国

States or, having left, remaining [abroad].” Id. at 278.

境内，或者，在离开后，留在[国外]。”Id. at 278。

That reasoning, in dissent, is strikingly similar to the government’s here.

该异议意见中的推理与政府在此处的推理惊人地相似。

Both Justice Scalia and the government would have us look at “what activity

Scalia大法官和政府都希望我们审视“该法规规制的是什么活动”，

the statute regulates,” be it reentry or a conviction. Both would ask whether

无论是重新入境还是定罪。两者都会问，申请人是否

the petitioner somehow could have avoided the consequences of the change in

能够以某种方式避免法律变更的后果。

law. And both would have us find the absence of retroactivity where the

两者都希望我们在相关行为发生在修正案之后的情况下

relevant conduct occurred after the amendments.

认定不存在溯及适用。

But the Court disagreed, explaining that any disability that attached to

但法院不同意，解释说，附加于申请人的任何无能力

the petitioner was a result of “a single crime committed years before” the statu-

都是“在该制定法变更之前多年前实施的一起单一犯罪”的结果。

tory change. Id. at 267–72. Furthermore, the Court rejected the notion that

Id. at 267–72。此外，法院驳回了这样一种观念，即

11

11

Case: 17-60529 Document: 00514689202 Page: 12 Date Filed: 10/19/2018

案件：17-60529 文件：00514689202 第12页 归档日期：10/19/2018

No. 17-60529

第17-60529号

the petitioner “could have avoided any adverse consequences” of the amend-

申请人“本可以避免该修正案的任何不利后果”，

ment by “simply stay[ing] at home in the United States.” Id. at 268.

方式是“仅仅留在美国国内的家中”。Id. at 268。

In much the same way, Lopez Ventura was charged with inadmissibility

大致相同的是，Lopez Ventura被指控不可入境，

because he possessed AB-CHMINACA—a crime committed before the addition

因为他持有AB-CHMINACA——该犯罪发生在该毒品被列入

of the drug to the schedules. Consequently, § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) operates

附表之前。因此，§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II)具有

retroactively in that it attaches a new disability (inadmissibility) to conduct

溯及适用效力，因为它将一项新的无能力（不可入境）附加于

completed before the regulatory change. It is purely irrelevant that Lopez Ven-

监管变更之前已完成的行为。Lopez Ven-

tura might have avoided the adverse consequences of his possession by seeking

tura本可以通过寻求更有利的认罪协议或进入审判来

a better plea deal or proceeding to trial.

避免其持有行为的 adverse 后果，这完全无关紧要。

Admittedly, the Vartelas Court did not squarely address whether retro-

诚然，Vartelas法院并未直接处理当一项新的无能力附加于

activity occurs when a new disability attaches to a defendant’s conduct or

被告的行为或定罪——两者均发生在制定法变更之前——时

conviction—as both occurred before the statutory change. 21 Nonetheless,

是否发生溯及适用的问题。21 尽管如此，

whenever the Court has articulated the test for retroactivity, it has framed

每当法院阐述溯及适用的检验标准时，它都将

that test in terms of attaching new disabilities to “transactions or consider-

该检验标准表述为将新的无能力附加于“已经过去的交易或对价”，22

ations already past,” 22 “conduct over and done,” 23 or “events completed before

已经过去的”22“已完成的行为，”23或“在……之前已完成的事件

[the statute’s] enactment.” 24 Thus, for purposes of retroactivity analysis, it is

已完成的事件”。24因此，就溯及适用分析而言，

the timing of the defendant’s conduct, not of his conviction, that controls.

起控制作用的是被告行为的时间，而非其定罪的时间。

“[F]amiliar considerations of fair notice, reasonable reliance, and settled

“关于公平通知、合理信赖和既定预期的常见考量”

expectations” serve only to confirm that conclusion. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 321

仅用于确认该结论。St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 321

(internal quotations omitted). When Lopez Ventura possessed

（内部引文省略）。当Lopez Ventura持有

AB-CHMINACA, he had no notice that such a crime carried the consequence

AB-CHMINACA时，他并未得到通知，即此类犯罪会带来

21 See also St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 326 (involving a defendant who was convicted before the statutory change); Carranza-De Salinas v. Holder, 700 F.3d 768, 774 (5th Cir. 2012) (same).

21 另见St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 326（涉及一名在制定法变更之前被定罪的被告）；Carranza-De Salinas v. Holder, 700 F.3d 768, 774 (5th Cir. 2012)（同上）。

22 Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 269 (internal quotation omitted).

22 Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 269（内部引文省略）。

23 Vartelas, 566 U.S. at 267.

23 Vartelas, 566 U.S. at 267。

24 St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 321 (internal quotations omitted).

24 St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 321（内部引文省略）。

12

12

Case: 17-60529 Document: 00514689202 Page: 13 Date Filed: 10/19/2018

案件：17-60529 文件：00514689202 第13页 归档日期：10/19/2018

No. 17-60529

第17-60529号

of inadmissibility. Although that disability attached only by virtue of his

不可入境的后果。尽管该无能力仅因他的

conviction, it was the act of possession that exposed him to conviction in the

定罪而附加，但正是持有行为首先使他面临定罪。

first place. Once he committed the crime, Lopez Ventura put himself on the

一旦他实施了该犯罪，Lopez Ventura就使自己走上了

path to conviction and any legal consequences that flowed therefrom. But at

通往定罪及由此产生的任何法律后果的道路。但在

the time of the crime, he was not on notice that one of those legal consequences

实施犯罪时，他并未得到通知，即其中一项法律后果

was inadmissibility.

是不可入境。

Still, one might argue that notice considerations are not directly impli-

不过，有人可能会主张，在如本案这样，被告在制定法变更之后

cated where, as here, the defendant pleaded guilty, after the statutory change,

在完全知悉其认罪的法律后果的情况下作出有罪答辩时，

with full knowledge of the legal consequences of his plea. Nevertheless, the

通知考量并不直接涉及。然而，

Supreme Court has explicitly held that the absence of actual detrimental reli-

最高法院已明确裁定，不存在实际的不利信赖

ance is not determinative. See Vartelas, 566 U.S. at 273. It would be a “strange

并不具有决定性。见Vartelas, 566 U.S. at 273。那将是一种“奇怪的

presumption . . . that arises only on a showing of actual reliance.” 25 Accord-

推定……仅在证明实际信赖时才产生。”25 因此，

ingly, the test for retroactivity is not whether the petitioner actually relied on

溯及适用的检验标准不是申请人是否实际信赖

the prior law but, instead, “whether the new provision attaches new legal con-

先前法律，而是“新条款是否将新的法律后果

sequences to events completed before its enactment.” Id. (internal quotation

附加于其颁布之前已完成的事件”。Id.（内部引文

omitted). Because the addition of AB-CHMINACA does so, it operates retroac-

省略）。因为添加AB-CHMINACA正是如此，所以它具有溯及

tively. And because § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) does not overcome the presumption

适用效力。并且因为§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II)并未克服

against retroactivity, applying it to Lopez Ventura is impermissibly

反对溯及适用的推定，将其适用于Lopez Ventura构成不被允许的

retroactive.

溯及适用。

We therefore GRANT the petition for review, REVERSE the BIA’s order,

因此，我们准予调卷申请，撤销BIA的命令，

and REMAND for the BIA to address what it left unsettled: namely, whether

并发回重审，由BIA处理其未解决的事项：即，

Lopez Ventura was convicted of possession of marihuana or, instead, of

Lopez Ventura是被判定犯有持有大麻罪，还是被判定犯有

AB-CHMINACA.

AB-CHMINACA罪。

25 Vartelas, 566 U.S. at 273 (cleaned up); see also Carranza-De Salnias, 700 F.3d at 772–73 (noting that “actual, subjective reliance” is not required to establish retroactivity).

25 Vartelas, 566 U.S. at 273（已清理）；另见Carranza-De Salnias, 700 F.3d at 772–73（指出确立溯及适用并不需要“实际的、主观的信赖”）。

13

13