Rogelio Flores-Abarca v. William Barr, U. S. Atty

Case: 17-60236 Document: 00515080419 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2019

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

No. 17-60236

FILED

August 16, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

ROGELIO FLORES-ABARCA, Clerk

Petitioner

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petitions for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Before DAVIS, HIGGINSON, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:

Rogelio Flores Abarca seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals

(BIA) decision holding that he is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of

removal because of a 2004 firearm transportation conviction. We first conclude

that Flores Abarca failed to exhaust his challenge to the immigration court’s

jurisdiction based on alleged defects in his Notice to Appear. On the merits, we

hold that the Oklahoma misdemeanor of transporting a loaded firearm in a

motor vehicle is not one of the firearms offenses listed under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1227(a)(2)(C). Accordingly, this conviction does not disqualify Flores Abarca

from seeking cancellation of removal. We grant the petition for review, vacate

the BIA’s order, and remand for further proceedings.

Case: 17-60236 Document: 00515080419 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/16/2019

No. 17-60236

I.

Flores Abarca is a native and citizen of Mexico. He entered the United

States unlawfully in 1988, when he was five years old. He currently lives in

Oklahoma and has four U.S. citizen children. In January 2004, Flores Abarca

pleaded guilty to the Oklahoma misdemeanor offense of transporting a loaded

firearm in a motor vehicle. See OKLA. STAT. tit. 21 § 1289.13. In May 2015,

the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against

Flores Abarca, alleging that he was present in the United States without

having been admitted or paroled. The Notice to Appear was personally served

on Flores Abarca and instructed him to appear before an immigration judge in

Dallas at a date and time to be set. Flores Abarca later received a notice of

hearing with a specific date and time, and he personally appeared in Dallas

immigration court on October 19, 2015. At this hearing, Flores Abarca

acknowledged receipt of the Notice to Appear, conceded his removability, and

stated that he wished to seek cancellation of removal.

Cancellation of removal is a form of relief available to certain otherwise

removable aliens. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. To be eligible for this relief, a

nonpermanent resident such as Flores Abarca must (1) have been continuously

physically present in the United States for at least 10 years; (2) demonstrate

good moral character during this period; (3) not be convicted of an offense

under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2), § 1227(a)(2), or § 1227(a)(3); and (4) “establish[]

that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to

the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an

alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).

Flores Abarca requested cancellation of removal based on hardship to his

four young children and his ailing lawful permanent resident parents. The

immigration judge asked for the government’s views regarding Flores Abarca’s

eligibility in light of his firearm transportation conviction. The government

2

Case: 17-60236 Document: 00515080419 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/16/2019

No. 17-60236

stated that it believed Flores Abarca was eligible for cancellation of removal,

and that it did not believe that his firearm transportation conviction fell under

the statute’s firearms provision. The immigration judge nonetheless expressed

concern about this conviction and ordered further briefing on the issue. In its

brief, the government revised its original position and argued that Flores

Abarca is ineligible for cancellation of removal because of his firearm

transportation conviction.

After considering the parties’ briefs, the immigration judge held that

Flores Abarca’s conviction for transporting a loaded firearm is a firearms

offense described under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C) and renders him ineligible for

cancellation of removal as a matter of law. Flores Abarca appealed his order of

removal to the BIA. On March 3, 2017, the BIA affirmed the immigration court

in a published and precedential opinion. See Matter of Flores-Abarca, 26 I & N

Dec. 922 (B.I.A. 2017). Flores Abarca timely moved for reconsideration. While

his motion for reconsideration was pending, Flores Abarca filed a motion to

remand to the immigration court to permit him to apply for adjustment of

status. The BIA denied both motions. Flores Abarca now petitions for review

of the BIA’s decisions.

II.

For the first time on appeal, Flores Abarca seeks to challenge alleged

defects in his Notice to Appear (NTA). This court generally lacks jurisdiction

to consider issues that were not first presented to the BIA. See Omari v. Holder,

562 F.3d 314, 318–19 (5th Cir. 2009); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d) (“A court may

review a final order of removal only if – (1) the alien has exhausted all

administrative remedies available to the alien as of right”). Flores Abarca

nonetheless contends that he can raise this issue at any time because defects

in the NTA undermine the immigration court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

This argument is foreclosed by our precedent. See Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d

3

Case: 17-60236 Document: 00515080419 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/16/2019

No. 17-60236

684, 693 (5th Cir. 2019) (holding that 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14 is a non-jurisdictional

claim processing rule, defects in which are waivable). Because Flores Abarca

did not properly exhaust this issue, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. We

therefore turn to the merits.

III.

The BIA held that Flores Abarca is ineligible for cancellation of removal

as a matter of law because “the crime of transporting a loaded firearm under

Oklahoma law is categorically a firearms offense under” 8 U.S.C.

§ 1227(a)(2)(C). Flores-Abarca, 26 I & N Dec. at 924. Because the BIA reached

an independent legal conclusion on this question, “our review is confined to the

BIA’s analysis and reasoning.” Enrique-Gutierrez v. Holder, 612 F.3d 400, 407

(5th Cir. 2010). With limited exceptions, we may “only affirm the BIA on the

basis of its stated rationale for ordering an alien removed from the United

States.” Id. The sole issue before us is therefore the purely legal question of

whether Flores Abarca’s Oklahoma firearm transportation conviction is

categorically a disqualifying firearms offense under § 1227(a)(2)(C). We have

jurisdiction to consider this legal issue. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).

A.

We first review the relevant statutory framework. A nonpermanent

resident does not qualify for cancellation of removal if he has “been convicted

of an offense under section 1182(a)(2), 1227(a)(2), or 1227(a)(3)” of Title 8 of the

U.S. Code. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C). The specific provision at issue in this case

is § 1227(a)(2)(C), which renders deportable “[a]ny alien who at any time after

admission is convicted” of certain firearms offenses. As a threshold matter,

4

Case: 17-60236 Document: 00515080419 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/16/2019

No. 17-60236

Flores Abarca contends that § 1227(a)(2)(C) does not apply to him because he

was never admitted to the United States. 1

This argument is foreclosed by our precedent. Flores Abarca was not

charged with being removable under § 1227(a)(2)(C). This provision is relevant

to this case only because it is cross-referenced in the cancellation of removal

statute. See § 1229b(b)(1)(C). We have held that this statutory cross-reference

simply “identif[ies] the kinds of offenses that will make an alien ineligible for

cancellation of removal.” Nino v. Holder, 690 F.3d 691, 697 (5th Cir. 2012)

(emphasis added). “For purposes of that ineligibility, it does not matter when

the offense occurred in relation to the alien’s admission.” Id. at 697–98; see also

Aleman v. Holder, 541 F. App’x 457, 459 (5th Cir. 2013) (“Nino v. Holder held

the plain language of § 1229b(b)(1)(C) unambiguously refers to the elements of

the offenses set forth in the three statutes and does not refer to any aspects of

immigration law.”).

Flores Abarca is therefore ineligible for cancellation of removal if he was

convicted of an offense listed in § 1227(a)(2)(C), regardless of whether he had

been admitted to the United States at the time of conviction. This provision

reads in full:

(C) Certain firearm offenses

Any alien who at any time after admission is convicted under any

law of purchasing, selling, offering for sale, exchanging, using,

owning, possessing, or carrying, or of attempting or conspiring to

purchase, sell, offer for sale, exchange, use, own, possess, or carry,

any weapon, part, or accessory which is a firearm or destructive

device (as defined in section 921(a) of Title 18) in violation of any

law is deportable.

1 We note that Flores Abarca failed to properly exhaust this issue before the BIA.

See Omari, 562 F.3d at 319. Yet, as the government recognizes, exhaustion is not required

when the BIA has no power to grant the requested relief because of binding circuit precedent.

See Arce-Vences v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 167, 172 (5th Cir. 2007). That is the case here.

5

Case: 17-60236 Document: 00515080419 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/16/2019

No. 17-60236

8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C).

The list of offenses in the statute does not include a conviction for

“transporting” a firearm in violation of any law.

The BIA reasoned, however, that “[a] plain reading of the statute makes

‘clear that Congress intended [it] to embrace the entire panoply of firearms

offenses.’” Flores-Abarca, 26 I & N Dec. at 923 (quoting Valerio-Ochoa v. INS,

241 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir. 2001)). The BIA further held that Flores Abarca

“necessarily had constructive ‘possession’ of the firearm for purposes of”

§ 1227(a)(2)(C) when he violated the Oklahoma firearm transportation statute.

Id. Finally, the BIA opined that “it would be illogical to hold that unlawful

possession of a loaded firearm would fall within the scope of [§ 1227(a)(2)(C)]

but that unlawfully transporting the same weapon would not.” Id. at 924. We

address each rationale in turn.

B.

The government urges us to hold that a plain reading of the statute

demonstrates that Congress intended § 1227(a)(2)(C) “to apply broadly to any

type of firearm offense.” Alternatively, the government asks us to accord

Chevron deference to the BIA’s view that the statute encompasses “firearms

offenses of any type.” Although this expansive reading would certainly simplify

our analysis, we decline the government’s invitation to rewrite the statutory

text.

We review the BIA’s “legal conclusions de novo unless a conclusion

embodies the Board’s interpretation of an ambiguous provision of a statute

that it administers.” Singh v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 484, 487 (5th Cir. 2006). In

the latter situation, a precedential decision by the BIA “is entitled to the

deference prescribed by Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense

Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).” Ali v. Lynch, 814 F.3d 306, 309 (5th Cir. 2016)

(cleaned up). “If Congress has explicitly left a gap for the agency to fill, there

6

Case: 17-60236 Document: 00515080419 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/16/2019

No. 17-60236

is an express delegation of authority to the agency to elucidate a specific

provision of the statute by regulation.” Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d

511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843–44). Before

according an agency Chevron deference, however, the “court must determine

first whether Congress has directly spoken to the question at issue.” Id. “If so,

the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously

expressed intent of Congress.” Id.

The BIA’s decision in this case is published and precedential, and thus

eligible for Chevron deference. See Flores-Abarca, 26 I & N Dec. 922. But

neither the BIA nor the government on appeal identify any ambiguity in the

firearms offense provision. The BIA instead relied on its “plain reading of the

statute.” Id. at 923. “Chevron deference must be reflective, not reflexive.”

Forrest Gen. Hosp. v. Azar, 926 F.3d 221, 228 (5th Cir. 2019). Absent statutory

ambiguity, the government may not invoke Chevron to shield agency reasoning

from judicial scrutiny. Id.; Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 517.

The text of § 1227(a)(2)(C) is neither vague nor unclear. Rather, it

unambiguously renders a large number of firearms convictions grounds for

deportation. The provision applies to any alien, including legal permanent

residents, convicted of “purchasing, selling, offering for sale, exchanging,

using, owning, possessing, or carrying . . . a firearm or destructive device,” or

“of attempting or conspiring” to commit any of these offenses. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1227(a)(2)(C). Contrary to the government’s position, however, the statute

does not state that “any type of firearm offense” is a basis for deportation. Nor

does the statute on its face reach “the entire panoply of firearms offenses.’”

Flores-Abarca, 26 I & N Dec. at 923 (quotation omitted). If that were Congress’s

intent, it could easily have said so. The same statute, for example, renders

deportable any alien convicted of violating “any law or regulation of a State,

the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (as

7

Case: 17-60236 Document: 00515080419 Page: 8 Date Filed: 08/16/2019

No. 17-60236

defined in section 802 of Title 21),” with a narrow exception for personal

marijuana possession. 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) (emphasis added).

Congress could have used the same language to render deportable any

alien convicted of violating any law “relating to” a firearm. Instead, Congress

chose to enumerate a list of offenses. See Dep’t of Homeland Security v.

MacLean, 135 S. Ct. 913, 919 (2015) (explaining that “Congress generally acts

intentionally when it uses particular language in one section of a statute but

omits it in another”). Reflecting that choice, the provision is titled “Certain

firearm offenses.” See Yates v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1074, 1083 (2015)

(explaining that while “headings are not commanding, they supply cues” as to

the intended scope of a statute).

Notably, despite the expansive language of the controlled substance

provision, the Supreme Court has declined to hold that Congress intended to

deport every alien convicted of a drug offense. In Mellouli v. Lynch, the

government argued that “aliens who commit drug crimes in States whose drug

schedules substantially overlap the federal schedules are removable, for state

statutes that criminalize hundreds of federally controlled drugs and a handful

of similar substances, are laws relating to federally controlled substances.” 135

S. Ct. 1980, 1989 (2015) (quotation omitted). The Court rejected this

construction of § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), explaining that “[t]his sweeping

interpretation departs so sharply from the statute’s text and history that it

cannot be considered a permissible reading.” Id. at 1990. The Court also

refused to adopt the BIA’s view that the statute covers all drug paraphernalia

convictions on the grounds that drug paraphernalia statutes relate to “the drug

trade in general.” Id. at 1988–89. The Court instead held that, “to trigger

removal under § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), the Government must connect an element of

the alien’s conviction to a drug ‘defined in [§ 802].’” Id. at 1991.

8

Case: 17-60236 Document: 00515080419 Page: 9 Date Filed: 08/16/2019

No. 17-60236

The same logic applies here. A firearm conviction cannot trigger

deportation or ineligibility for cancellation of removal under § 1227(a)(2)(C)

unless it fits within one of the statutorily enumerated offenses. This

construction is consistent with our prior applications of this statute, as well as

that of other circuits. See Segovia-Rivas v. Lynch, 643 F. App’x 367, 369 (5th

Cir. 2016) (holding that a conviction for “Attempted Deadly Conduct—

Discharge of a Firearm” is categorically an offense covered by § 1227(a)(2)(C)

because “[d]ischarging a firearm clearly involves use of a firearm”) (emphasis

added); Aybar-Alejo v. INS, 230 F.3d 487, 488–89 (1st Cir. 2000) (explaining

that a conviction for firearm possession under Rhode Island law is not broader

than possession under federal law); Lopez-Amaro v. INS, 25 F.3d 986, 989–90

(11th Cir. 1994) (holding that “first degree murder with a pistol” qualifies as

“using a firearm in violation of any law”).

The government contends that several other circuits have interpreted

§ 1227(a)(2)(C) more expansively to “embrace the entire panoply of firearms

offenses.” Valerio-Ochoa, 241 F.3d at 1095; see also Kuhali v. Reno, 266 F.3d

93, 103 (2d Cir. 2001); Hall v. INS, 167 F.3d 852, 855 (4th Cir. 1999). The cases

cited do include some broad language regarding the scope of the firearms

provision. But our sister circuits took care to locate the petitioner’s particular

conviction within one of the enumerated offenses. See Valerio-Ochoa, 241 F.3d

at 1095–96 (explaining that a conviction for “willfully discharg[ing] a firearm”

clearly “qualifies as ‘using’ a firearm under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C)”); Kuhali,

266 F.3d at 105 (finding that exporting firearms without a license involves

“possessing” a firearm because “the power to send or take a commodity out of

the country necessarily implies—because of the exercise of dominion or

control—at least constructive possession”); Hall, 167 F.3d at 856 (holding that

a conviction for making false statements in connection with the acquisition of

a firearm was a conviction for “purchasing or attempting to purchase” a firearm

9

Case: 17-60236 Document: 00515080419 Page: 10 Date Filed: 08/16/2019

No. 17-60236

under § 1227(a)(2)(C) because the petitioner “participated in and enabled an

unlawful purchase of a firearm”). These cases do not stand for the proposition

that either the BIA or the courts are free to disregard the statute’s list of

enumerated offenses.

Despite its own broad language, the BIA similarly went on to consider

whether Flores Abarca’s firearm transportation offense is a conviction for

“possessing” a firearm under § 1227(a)(2)(C). See Flores-Abarca, 26 I & N Dec.

at 923. We now review that determination.

C.

Flores Abarca is ineligible for cancellation of removal if he was “convicted

under any law of . . . possessing . . . a firearm or destructive device.” 8 U.S.C.

§ 1227(a)(2)(C). The BIA held that Flores Abarca “necessarily had constructive

‘possession’ of the firearm” when he “knowingly and willfully transported” it in

his vehicle, and “conclude[d] that the crime of transporting a loaded firearm

under Oklahoma law is categorically a firearms offense under the Act.” Flores-

Abarca, 26 I&N Dec. at 923–24. Our analysis of federal and Oklahoma law

compels a different conclusion.

Like the BIA, we must analyze Flores Abarca’s conviction under the

categorical approach. See Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184, 192 (2013);

Segovia-Rivas, 643 F. App’x at 369. “Because Congress predicated deportation

on convictions, not conduct, the approach looks to the statutory definition of

the offense of conviction, not to the particulars of an alien’s behavior.” Mellouli,

135 S. Ct. at 1986 (quotation omitted). “[A] state offense is a categorical match

with a generic federal offense only if a conviction of the state offense

necessarily involved facts equating to the generic federal offense.” Moncrieffe,

569 U.S. at 190 (cleaned up). “[W]e are to look to the conviction itself as our

starting place, not to what might have or could have been charged.” Carachuri-

Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563, 576 (2010). In the context of a guilty plea, a

10

Case: 17-60236 Document: 00515080419 Page: 11 Date Filed: 08/16/2019

No. 17-60236

conviction is a categorical match “only if the defendant ‘necessarily admitted

[the] elements of the generic offense.’” Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254,

262 (2013) (quoting Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 26 (2005)).

Because we find that § 1227(a)(2)(C) “is unambiguous according to its

plain language with respect to the question presented,” we review the BIA’s

legal conclusions de novo. Miresles-Zuniga v. Holder, 743 F.3d 110, 112 (5th

Cir. 2014). We also review de novo the BIA’s interpretation of Flores Abarca’s

Oklahoma offense, as “[d]etermining a particular federal or state crime’s

elements lies beyond the scope of the BIA’s delegated power or accumulated

expertise.” Omagah v. Ashcroft, 288 F.3d 254, 258 (5th Cir. 2002); see also

Sarmientos v. Holder, 742 F.3d 624, 627 (5th Cir. 2014) (“[N]o deference is

afforded in reviewing the BIA’s interpretation of state criminal law.”).

We first outline the elements of the generic federal offense of unlawful

firearm possession. Under federal law, “possession” includes constructive

possession. See Henderson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1780, 1784 (2015); see

also Aybar-Alejo, 230 F.3d at 488–89 (collecting cases). “Actual possession

exists when a person has direct physical control over a thing,” whereas

“[c]onstructive possession is established when a person, though lacking such

physical custody, still has the power and intent to exercise control over the

object.” Henderson, 135 S. Ct. at 1784. Yet mere possession of a firearm is not

a criminal offense. 2 See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 636 (2008).

“Assuming compliance with ordinary licensing requirements, the possession of

a gun can be entirely innocent.” Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2197

(2019). The plain meaning of “possessing . . . a firearm . . . in violation of any

2 Although Congress has restricted the rights of unlawfully present aliens to

possess firearms, the offenses listed in § 1227(a)(2)(C) apply to any alien, including legal

permanent residents. See, e.g., Valerio-Ochoa, 241 F.3d at 1094.

11

Case: 17-60236 Document: 00515080419 Page: 12 Date Filed: 08/16/2019

No. 17-60236

law” under § 1227(a)(2)(C) therefore requires that the possession be in some

respect unlawful.

The parties agree that the elements of Flores Abarca’s Oklahoma offense

are: (1) knowingly; (2) willfully; (3) transporting; (4) a specified firearm; (5)

that is loaded; (6) in the interior/(locked exterior compartment)/trunk; (7) of a

motor vehicle; (8) on a public highway or roadway. See Okla. Unif. Jury Instr.

CR 6-37A; see also Flores-Abarca, 26 I & N Dec. at 923. These elements do not

include possession, much less unlawful possession. 3 On its face, the statute is

therefore not a categorical match to the generic federal offense of unlawful

firearm possession. See Moncrieffe, 569 U.S. at 190.

To resist this conclusion, the government argues that Flores Abarca’s act

of transporting a loaded firearm necessarily encompassed the possession or

constructive possession of a firearm. The parties have not briefed the issue of

whether an element of possession is sufficient to transform a conviction for a

different firearms offense into a conviction for possessing a firearm within the

meaning of § 1227(a)(2)(C). We have some doubts about this assumption. 4 Even

accepting the government’s framing of the issue, however, it is not the case

that the Oklahoma offense of transporting a loaded firearm requires that the

defendant actually or constructively possess a firearm.

3 Oklahoma law recognizes separate offenses of unlawful firearm possession.

See, e.g., OKLA. STAT. tit. 21 § 1280.1 (possession of a firearm on school property); § 1283

(possession of a firearm by a convicted felon). A conviction for one of these offenses does

require proof of possession. See Okla. Unif. Jury Instr. CR 6-37 (outlining the elements of

“unlawful possession of a firearm” as (1) knowing; (2) willful; (3) possession of/having under

one’s immediate control; (4) a specified firearm; and (5) the specific ground for unlawfulness).

4 We note that construing a conviction for “possessing” a firearm under

§ 1227(a)(2)(C) to include firearm convictions involving lawful possession plus an illegal act

might render superfluous many of the other enumerated offenses, including “using,” and

“carrying” a firearm. See Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 146 (1995) (adopting a limited

reading of “use” of a firearm to avoid creating redundancy with the term “carry”).

12

Case: 17-60236 Document: 00515080419 Page: 13 Date Filed: 08/16/2019

No. 17-60236

The term “transport” does not necessarily imply possession. The driver

of a vehicle can transport passengers and their possessions without having the

“power and intent to exercise control over” every object in the vehicle.

Henderson, 135 S. Ct. at 1784. As we have been clear, “dominion over the

vehicle . . . alone cannot establish constructive possession of a weapon found in

the vehicle, particularly in the face of evidence that strongly suggests that

somebody else exercised dominion and control over the weapon.” United States

v. Wright, 24 F.3d 732, 735 (5th Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Melancon,

662 F.3d 708, 713 (5th Cir. 2011) (“Where two people jointly occupy a space,

dominion over the space is not enough by itself to establish constructive

possession.”). Although knowledge of a firearm’s presence may be evidence of

possession, knowing transportation does not conclusively establish

constructive possession as a matter of law. See Wright, 24 F.3d at 735

(explaining that “whether constructive possession exists is not a scientific

inquiry” and requires “a common sense, fact-specific approach”); United States

v. Crain, 33 F.3d 480, 486–87 (5th Cir. 1994) (finding insufficient evidence that

defendant driver exercised constructive possession over drugs found in the

vehicle).

Oklahoma’s criminal prohibition against transporting loaded firearms in

vehicles clearly extends to firearms possessed by passengers. At the time of

Flores Abarca’s offense, the relevant statute read as follows:

Except as otherwise provided by . . . another provision of law

of this state, it shall be unlawful to transport a loaded pistol, rifle,

or shotgun in any landborne motor vehicle over a public highway

or roadway. However, a rifle or shotgun may be transported when

clip or magazine loaded and not chamber loaded when transported

in an exterior locked compartment of the vehicle or trunk of the

vehicle.

Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall be

punished as provided in Section 1289.15 of this title.

13

Case: 17-60236 Document: 00515080419 Page: 14 Date Filed: 08/16/2019

No. 17-60236

Any person who is the operator of a vehicle or is a passenger

in any vehicle wherein another person who is licensed pursuant to

the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Sections 1 through 25 of this act,

to carry a concealed handgun and is carrying a concealed handgun

or has concealed the handgun in such vehicle, shall not be deemed

in violation of the provisions of this section provided the licensee

is in or near the vehicle.

OKLA. STAT. tit. 21 § 1289.13 (2003).

The statute’s final paragraph protects a driver from liability if his

passenger has a concealed carry license. But a driver would have no such safe

harbor if he knowingly gave a ride to an armed passenger who lacked a

concealed carry license. Even in cases where a defendant does have possession

of a firearm as a factual matter, Oklahoma is never required to prove

possession or constructive possession to obtain a conviction under this statute.

Flores Abarca thus did not “necessarily admit[] the elements of the generic

offense” of unlawful firearm possession by pleading guilty to this Oklahoma

transportation offense. Descamps, 570 U.S. at 262 (quotation omitted).

The BIA’s contrary conclusion relied on a statement in United States v.

Bass, that “virtually all transportations, whether interstate or intrastate,

involve an accompanying possession or receipt.” 404 U.S. 336, 340 (1971);

Flores-Abarca, 26 I & N Dec. at 924. This factual observation regarding the

frequent overlap between transportation and possession offenses does not alter

our analysis. The question presented in Bass was whether the federal

prohibition on felons possessing, receiving, or transporting firearms requires

proof of a connection to interstate commerce in every case. 404 U.S. at 339. The

Court held that “the phrase ‘in commerce or affecting commerce’ is part of all

three offenses” rather than modifying only the transport offense. Id. at 347.

The Supreme Court did not hold that the prohibition against felons

transporting a firearm is redundant of the prohibition against possession, nor

14

Case: 17-60236 Document: 00515080419 Page: 15 Date Filed: 08/16/2019

No. 17-60236

that all federal transportation offenses require proof of possession. 5 Such

holdings would have been consequential for federal criminal law, increasing

the government’s burden of proof in transportation prosecutions and

introducing redundancy in the federal criminal code. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g), (h)(1), (k). But that was not the issue presented in Bass, and it is not

the issue the Court decided.

Importantly, the Supreme Court’s later decision in Muscarello v. United

States, 524 U.S. 125 (1998), makes clear that transportation offenses remain

distinct from possession offenses. The Court in Muscarello held that the phrase

“carries a firearm” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) “applies to a person who knowingly

possesses and conveys firearms in a vehicle, including in the locked glove

compartment or trunk of a car, which the person accompanies.” Id. at 126–27.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ginsburg argued that this definition better

describes the term “transport” than the term “carry.” Id. at 146–48. 6 She noted

that other federal statutes use the term “transport” rather than “carry” to

“describe[e] when and how a person may travel in a vehicle that contains his

firearms.” Id. at 146–47 (citing 18 U.S.C §§ 925(a)(2)(B) and 926A). A majority

of the Court disagreed, explaining that its “definition does not equate ‘carry’

and ‘transport.’” Id. at 134. “‘Carry’ implies personal agency and some degree

5 We were not aided by the government’s briefing on this point, which incorrectly

attributed language from Malilia v. Holder, 632 F.3d 598, 604 (9th Cir. 2011) to Bass itself.

This inaccurate citation was inquired into, but not corrected, at oral argument. We should

not need to remind the government that, although we are bound by the precedent of the

Supreme Court, we are not bound by another circuit’s interpretation of that precedent. In

any event, we do not find support in Bass for the proposition that “establishing that a firearm

traveled interstate necessarily requires some element of possession.” Malilia, 632 F.3d at

604. We similarly part ways with the Second Circuit’s interpretation of Bass to imply an

element of possession in transportation offenses. See Kuhali, 266 F.3d at 105.

6 The Eleventh Circuit expressed a similar view in a case predating Muscarello.

See United States v. Richards, 967 F.2d 1189, 1195 (8th Cir. 1992) (construing “the ordinary

meaning of the term ‘transport’ . . . as involving an element of possession and an element of

movement”).

15

Case: 17-60236 Document: 00515080419 Page: 16 Date Filed: 08/16/2019

No. 17-60236

of possession, whereas ‘transport’ does not have such a limited connotation and,

in addition, implies the movement of goods in bulk over great distances.” Id.

(emphasis added).

This distinction is fully consistent with our construction of the Oklahoma

statute at issue in this case. Although carrying a firearm requires “some degree

of possession,” transporting a firearm does not. Id. The government attempts

to distinguish Muscarello by arguing that the Supreme Court understood

“transport” to refer only to the “movement of goods in bulk,” whereas Flores

Abarca’s Oklahoma transportation offense is more akin to “carrying.” Id. This

argument is unavailing. The Supreme Court discussed several statutes that

apply the term “transport” to single firearms. See id. at 134–36; see also 18

U.S.C § 924(b) (imposing criminal penalties on someone who “transports . . . a

firearm” with intent to commit a felony). Notably, the statute most central to

the disagreement between the majority and the dissent, 18 U.S.C. § 926A, uses

the term “transport” in precisely the same context as the Oklahoma statute at

issue here. See id. (providing that individuals are “entitled to transport a

firearm for any lawful purpose,” so long as “during such transportation the

firearm is unloaded” and not “directly accessible from the passenger

compartment of such transporting vehicle”). The Court specifically addressed

§ 926A and reiterated its conclusion that “the word ‘transport’ is broader than

the word ‘carry.’” Muscarello, 524 U.S. at 135. We have no basis to conclude

that the term “transport” has a different meaning under Oklahoma law than

under federal law. 7

7 The government represented at oral argument that its briefing and the BIA’s

opinion had relied on Oklahoma caselaw interpreting transportation to require an element

of constructive possession. As the government commendably acknowledged in a post-

argument letter to the court, this representation was mistaken. The government’s letter

belatedly points us to a decision from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Allen v. State,

871 P.2d 79 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994), as support for its position. We emphasize that “[t]he

16

Case: 17-60236 Document: 00515080419 Page: 17 Date Filed: 08/16/2019

No. 17-60236

We acknowledge that our analysis is in tension with the outcome reached

by the Eighth Circuit in Awad v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 723 (8th Cir. 2007). Awad,

a legal permanent resident and “a sport hunter lawfully hunting,” was cited

for transporting a loaded hunting rifle in his vehicle. Id. at 724. The BIA held

that this misdemeanor game and fish law violation rendered Awad deportable

under § 1227(a)(2)(C). Id. at 724–25. Awad petitioned for review, arguing that

his hunting rifle fell within an exception to the federal definition of a firearm.

Id. at 725. The court rejected this argument and affirmed. Id. at 726–27. The

issue of whether § 1227(a)(2)(C) encompasses transportation offenses was

apparently not raised before the Eighth Circuit, and the court did not squarely

address it. Instead, the court deferred to the BIA without examining the

specific offenses enumerated in § 1227(a)(2)(C) or identifying any ambiguity in

the statutory language. Id. at 725. We therefore do not find Awad persuasive

as to the question presented in this appeal.

In sum, we hold that Flores Abarca’s misdemeanor conviction for

unlawfully transporting a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle does not include

unlawful possession as a necessary element and does not categorically match

an offense listed under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C).

proper time to closely examine the record and develop legal defenses is before the completion

of briefing,” not after oral argument. United States v. Arellano-Banuelos, 912 F.3d 862, 865

n.2 (5th Cir. 2019). Even if the government’s new argument were properly before us, it would

not affect our conclusion. The defendant in Allen was charged with “carrying a loaded

firearm.” 871 P.2d at 102. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed this conviction,

explaining that simple possession of a firearm is not a crime. Id. at 103. To constitute a crime,

the “carrying” must be unlawful in some additional way, such as “carrying a loaded firearm

in a vehicle” or “carrying any firearm after conviction of a felony.” Id. The Oklahoma court

did not, however, hold that “carrying” a firearm is the only means to commit the offense of

unlawful transportation of a firearm in a motor vehicle. Rather, its decision is consistent with

the proposition that “‘transport’ is a broader category that includes ‘carry’ but also

encompasses other activity.” Muscarello, 524 U.S. at 135.

17

Case: 17-60236 Document: 00515080419 Page: 18 Date Filed: 08/16/2019

No. 17-60236

D.

Finally, we address the BIA’s view that omitting firearm transportation

offenses from the scope of § 1227(a)(2)(C) is “illogical” and inconsistent with

legislative history. Flores-Abarca, 26 I&N Dec. at 924. The BIA observes that,

in the original version of the statute, “only the crimes of ‘possessing or carrying’

a firearm were a basis for deportation.” Id. “Subsequent legislation expanded

the deportable offenses to the current extensive list of crimes, as well as

attempts and conspiracies to commit them.” Id. This history, however, can be

read in multiple ways. On the one hand, Congress may have wished to expand

the reach of § 1227(a)(2)(C) to cover all firearms offenses, and simply neglected

to include the term “transporting” when amending the statute. Such an

oversight would be somewhat surprising, as federal criminal law extensively

regulates the transportation of firearms. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)–(5), (i),

(n), § 924(b). On the other hand, Congress may have made a deliberate choice

to add some firearms offenses but not others. Regardless, “[w]e cannot replace

the actual text with speculation as to Congress’ intent.” Magwood v. Patterson,

561 U.S. 320, 334 (2010).

Nor can we substitute either the BIA’s policy views or our own judgment

for that of Congress. See Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U.S. 522, 525–26

(1987). Congress clearly intended to render deportable most aliens convicted of

gun crimes, but it chose to effectuate this goal by specifying a list of offenses.

“Legislation is, after all, the art of compromise, the limitations expressed in

statutory terms often the price of passage, and no statute yet known pursues

its stated purpose at all costs.” Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 137

S. Ct. 1718, 1725 (2017) (cleaned up). We must therefore “presume that a

legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says

there.” Connecticut National Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253–54 (1992).

18

Case: 17-60236 Document: 00515080419 Page: 19 Date Filed: 08/16/2019

No. 17-60236

“[W]hen the statute’s language is plain, the sole function of the courts—

at least where the disposition required by the text is not absurd—is to enforce

it according to its terms.” Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters

Bank, N.A., 530 U.S. 1, 6 (2000) (cleaned up). Here, a plain reading of the

statute produces no absurd results. The BIA maintains that it would be

“illogical to hold that unlawful possession of a loaded firearm would fall within

the scope of [§ 1227(a)(2)(C)] but that unlawfully transporting the same

weapon would not.” Flores-Abarca, 26 I&N Dec. at 924. We disagree. As

previously emphasized, firearms are not inherently illicit. An individual can

commit a transportation offense even if transporting a legally-owned firearm

from one lawful location to another, for an entirely lawful purpose. See, e.g.,

Awad, 494 F.3d at 724 (noting that Awad was “a sport hunter lawfully hunting”

when he was cited for transporting a loaded hunting rifle). Moreover, mere

transportation lacks the elements of unlawful possession or use that can make

firearm offenses particularly dangerous. See, e.g., Muscarello, 524 U.S. at 135–

36 (noting that Congress “impose[d] a less strict sentencing regime” on firearm

transport offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 924(b) than firearm carrying offenses

under § 924(c)).

It is thus rational for Congress to treat unlawful firearm transportation

differently from unlawful possession. We also note that § 1227(a)(2)(C) is not

the sole removal provision applicable to firearms offenses. Congress has

separately designated certain serious firearm transportation offenses as

aggravated felonies, including transporting a firearm with the intent to

commit a felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(43)(E)(ii); see also 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)–

(5); § 922(n); § 924(b). An alien convicted of one of these offenses is deportable

under § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), notwithstanding our construction of § 1227(a)(2)(C).

The statutory scheme as a whole does not create any illogical gaps in

immigration enforcement.

19

Case: 17-60236 Document: 00515080419 Page: 20 Date Filed: 08/16/2019

No. 17-60236

IV.

Flores Abarca’s Oklahoma firearm transportation conviction is not an

offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C) and does not render him statutorily

ineligible for cancellation of removal. In light of this holding, we need not reach

the question of whether the BIA abused its discretion in denying Flores

Abarca’s motions for reconsideration and remand.

We GRANT the petition for review, VACATE the decision of the BIA,

and REMAND for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

20