KASINSKI V. GARLAND, No. 22-1956 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 21 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BARTOSZ KASINSKI, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 22-1956 Agency No. A028-119-063 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 17, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: FORREST and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges, and OLIVER, Senior District Judge.*** Bartosz Kasinski, a native and citizen of Poland, seeks review of the Board of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Solomon Oliver, Jr., United States Senior District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s decision finding him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) for having been convicted of a controlled-substance crime. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, but we are limited to considering whether Kasinski’s offense is a controlledsubstance violation under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). We review this question de novo. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Romero-Millan v. Garland, 46 F.4th 1032, 1040 (9th Cir. 2022). We deny Kasinski’s petition for review. Kasinski argues that his drug paraphernalia conviction under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3415(A) does not render him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) because the Arizona statute is not divisible as to drug type. Our decision in RomeroMillan squarely forecloses Kasinski’s argument. 46 F.4th at 1043–44 (“[W]e hold that [Ariz. Rev. Stat.] § 13-3415 is divisible as to drug type.”). Nonetheless, Kasinski suggests that Romero-Millan was wrongly decided because it did not “meaningfully consider[]” the Arizona Court of Appeals’ decision in State v. Soza, 464 P.3d 696 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). Specifically, he urges us to rely on Soza to conclude that his convictions under § 13-3415 are not divisible by drug type and, therefore, cannot sustain his removal charge. We decline Kasinski’s invitation because we are not at liberty to ignore our binding precedent that holds otherwise. Romero-Millan, 46 F.4th at 1043; see also Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (Absent effective overruling by a higher court, “a three- 2 22-1956 judge panel may not overrule a prior decision of the court.”) PETITION DENIED. 3 22-1956
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
