State and Federal Controlled-Substance Schedule Mismatch

How overbroad state drug schedules interact with INA controlled-substance grounds, including categorical matching, divisibility, and the realistic-probability inquiry.

A state drug conviction can be overbroad if the state schedule covers substances not included in the federal schedules. The analysis asks whether the conviction necessarily relates to a federally controlled substance, while current BIA precedent also requires attention to realistic probability when the asserted mismatch depends on how the state actually prosecutes the statute.

For state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration, the practitioner should map the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration charge before making concessions. The state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration map should identify the conviction, the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration statutory comparator, the governing state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration method, and the evidence that current state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration law permits.

INA §237(a)(2)(B)(i) refers to a controlled substance as defined in 21 U.S.C. §802, so the federal schedules are the comparison point.

Within state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration, this proposition limits the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration dispute. The clause “INA §237(a)(2)(B)(i) refers to a controlled substance as defined in 21 U.S.C. §802” must be linked to state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration authority before “so the federal schedules are the comparison point.” is treated as established. Mellouli v. Lynch, 575 U.S. 798 (2015) supplies a published state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration record on rule 1 should identify the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration document proving the conviction, the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration source proving the legal rule, and the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration requirement.

Mellouli v. Lynch rejects immigration consequences based on a state drug offense where the conviction was not tied to a substance controlled under federal law.

Within state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration, this proposition defines the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration dispute. The clause “Mellouli v. Lynch rejects immigration consequences based on a state drug offense” must be linked to state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration authority before “where the conviction was not tied to a substance controlled under federal law.” is treated as established. Matter of Felix-Figueroa, 29 I&N Dec. 157 (BIA 2025) supplies a published state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration record on rule 2 should identify the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration document proving the conviction, the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration source proving the legal rule, and the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration requirement.

A state schedule that contains substances not federally controlled can make the statute facially broader, but the next steps depend on divisibility and controlling realistic-probability precedent.

Within state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration, this proposition narrows the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration dispute. The clause “A state schedule that contains substances not federally controlled can make the statute facially broader” must be linked to state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration authority before “but the next steps depend on divisibility and controlling realistic-probability precedent.” is treated as established. Matter of Navarro Guadarrama, 27 I&N Dec. 560 (BIA 2019) supplies a published state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration record on rule 3 should identify the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration document proving the conviction, the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration source proving the legal rule, and the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration requirement.

Matter of Felix-Figueroa holds that an apparent textual isomer mismatch is not automatically enough where the respondent has not shown a realistic probability that the state actually prosecutes the asserted nonfederal substance or isomer.

Within state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration, this proposition controls the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration dispute. The clause “Matter of Felix-Figueroa holds that an apparent textual isomer mismatch is not automatically enough where the respondent” must be linked to state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration authority before “has not shown a realistic probability that the state actually prosecutes the asserted nonfederal substance or isomer.” is treated as established. Mellouli v. Lynch, 575 U.S. 798 (2015) supplies a published state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration record on rule 4 should identify the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration document proving the conviction, the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration source proving the legal rule, and the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration requirement.

The realistic-probability burden described in Felix-Figueroa is distinct from DHS's ultimate clear-and-convincing burden of proving deportability.

Within state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration, this proposition structures the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration dispute. The clause “The realistic-probability burden described in Felix-Figueroa is distinct” must be linked to state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration authority before “from DHS's ultimate clear-and-convincing burden of proving deportability.” is treated as established. Matter of Felix-Figueroa, 29 I&N Dec. 157 (BIA 2025) supplies a published state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration record on rule 5 should identify the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration document proving the conviction, the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration source proving the legal rule, and the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration requirement.

If the state statute is divisible by drug identity, the modified categorical approach can permit review of conviction documents to identify the controlled substance of conviction.

Within state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration, this proposition changes the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration dispute. The clause “If the state statute is divisible by drug identity” must be linked to state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration authority before “the modified categorical approach can permit review of conviction documents to identify the controlled substance of conviction.” is treated as established. Matter of Navarro Guadarrama, 27 I&N Dec. 560 (BIA 2019) supplies a published state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration record on rule 6 should identify the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration document proving the conviction, the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration source proving the legal rule, and the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration requirement.

If drug identity is merely a means rather than an element, factual documents cannot be used to select a federally controlled drug under the modified categorical approach.

Within state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration, this proposition directs the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration dispute. The clause “If drug identity is merely a means rather than an element” must be linked to state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration authority before “factual documents cannot be used to select a federally controlled drug under the modified categorical approach.” is treated as established. Mellouli v. Lynch, 575 U.S. 798 (2015) supplies a published state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration record on rule 7 should identify the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration document proving the conviction, the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration source proving the legal rule, and the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration requirement.

Schedule changes over time require the correct temporal comparison; current BIA precedent separately addresses which federal and state schedules govern at the time of conviction.

Within state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration, this proposition governs the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration dispute. The clause “Schedule changes over time require the correct temporal comparison” must be linked to state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration authority before “current BIA precedent separately addresses which federal and state schedules govern at the time of conviction.” is treated as established. Matter of Felix-Figueroa, 29 I&N Dec. 157 (BIA 2025) supplies a published state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration record on rule 8 should identify the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration document proving the conviction, the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration source proving the legal rule, and the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration requirement.

The same mismatch analysis can affect inadmissibility, deportability, aggravated-felony drug trafficking, and relief eligibility, but the precise statutory texts differ.

Within state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration, this proposition resolves the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration dispute. The clause “The same mismatch analysis can affect inadmissibility” must be linked to state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration authority before “deportability” is treated as established. Matter of Navarro Guadarrama, 27 I&N Dec. 560 (BIA 2019) supplies a published state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration record on rule 9 should identify the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration document proving the conviction, the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration source proving the legal rule, and the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration requirement.

Counsel should preserve copies of historical state schedules, federal schedules, statutory definitions of isomers or analogues, charging documents, plea records, and state cases demonstrating actual prosecutions.

Within state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration, this proposition frames the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration dispute. The clause “Counsel should preserve copies of historical state schedules” must be linked to state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration authority before “federal schedules” is treated as established. Mellouli v. Lynch, 575 U.S. 798 (2015) supplies a published state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration record on rule 10 should identify the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration document proving the conviction, the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration source proving the legal rule, and the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration requirement.

Mellouli v. Lynch, 575 U.S. 798 (2015) matters to state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration because its holding addresses a state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration component reflected in this rule: INA §237(a)(2)(B)(i) refers to a controlled substance as defined in 21 U.S.C. §802, so the federal schedules are the comparison point.

Applying Mellouli v. Lynch, 575 U.S. 798 (2015) to state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration also requires attention to this separate state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration proposition: Mellouli v. Lynch rejects immigration consequences based on a state drug offense where the conviction was not tied to a substance controlled under federal law. The state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration brief should use the case for those propositions and avoid extending the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration holding beyond its procedural posture.

Matter of Felix-Figueroa, 29 I&N Dec. 157 (BIA 2025) matters to state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration because its holding addresses a state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration component reflected in this rule: A state schedule that contains substances not federally controlled can make the statute facially broader, but the next steps depend on divisibility and controlling realistic-probability precedent.

Applying Matter of Felix-Figueroa, 29 I&N Dec. 157 (BIA 2025) to state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration also requires attention to this separate state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration proposition: Matter of Felix-Figueroa holds that an apparent textual isomer mismatch is not automatically enough where the respondent has not shown a realistic probability that the state actually prosecutes the asserted nonfederal substance or isomer. The state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration brief should use the case for those propositions and avoid extending the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration holding beyond its procedural posture.

Matter of Navarro Guadarrama, 27 I&N Dec. 560 (BIA 2019) matters to state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration because its holding addresses a state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration component reflected in this rule: The realistic-probability burden described in Felix-Figueroa is distinct from DHS's ultimate clear-and-convincing burden of proving deportability.

Applying Matter of Navarro Guadarrama, 27 I&N Dec. 560 (BIA 2019) to state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration also requires attention to this separate state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration proposition: If the state statute is divisible by drug identity, the modified categorical approach can permit review of conviction documents to identify the controlled substance of conviction. The state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration brief should use the case for those propositions and avoid extending the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration holding beyond its procedural posture.

A state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration file should integrate three distinct state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration propositions. First: INA §237(a)(2)(B)(i) refers to a controlled substance as defined in 21 U.S.C. §802, so the federal schedules are the comparison point. Second: Matter of Felix-Figueroa holds that an apparent textual isomer mismatch is not automatically enough where the respondent has not shown a realistic probability that the state actually prosecutes the asserted nonfederal substance or isomer. Third: If drug identity is merely a means rather than an element, factual documents cannot be used to select a federally controlled drug under the modified categorical approach.

Those state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration propositions determine the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration documents worth collecting. Certified records should prove state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration elements and sentence; historical materials should prove state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration timing when timing matters; broader proof should be reserved for a circumstance-specific state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration qualifier. The final state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration brief should assign each state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration burden and request a precise state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration ruling.

A state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration file should integrate three distinct state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration propositions. First: Mellouli v. Lynch rejects immigration consequences based on a state drug offense where the conviction was not tied to a substance controlled under federal law. Second: The realistic-probability burden described in Felix-Figueroa is distinct from DHS's ultimate clear-and-convincing burden of proving deportability. Third: Schedule changes over time require the correct temporal comparison; current BIA precedent separately addresses which federal and state schedules govern at the time of conviction.

Those state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration propositions determine the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration documents worth collecting. Certified records should prove state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration elements and sentence; historical materials should prove state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration timing when timing matters; broader proof should be reserved for a circumstance-specific state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration qualifier. The final state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration brief should assign each state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration burden and request a precise state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration ruling.

A state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration file should integrate three distinct state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration propositions. First: A state schedule that contains substances not federally controlled can make the statute facially broader, but the next steps depend on divisibility and controlling realistic-probability precedent. Second: If the state statute is divisible by drug identity, the modified categorical approach can permit review of conviction documents to identify the controlled substance of conviction. Third: The same mismatch analysis can affect inadmissibility, deportability, aggravated-felony drug trafficking, and relief eligibility, but the precise statutory texts differ.

Those state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration propositions determine the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration documents worth collecting. Certified records should prove state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration elements and sentence; historical materials should prove state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration timing when timing matters; broader proof should be reserved for a circumstance-specific state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration qualifier. The final state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration brief should assign each state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration burden and request a precise state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration ruling.

A state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration file should integrate three distinct state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration propositions. First: Matter of Felix-Figueroa holds that an apparent textual isomer mismatch is not automatically enough where the respondent has not shown a realistic probability that the state actually prosecutes the asserted nonfederal substance or isomer. Second: If drug identity is merely a means rather than an element, factual documents cannot be used to select a federally controlled drug under the modified categorical approach. Third: Counsel should preserve copies of historical state schedules, federal schedules, statutory definitions of isomers or analogues, charging documents, plea records, and state cases demonstrating actual prosecutions.

Those state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration propositions determine the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration documents worth collecting. Certified records should prove state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration elements and sentence; historical materials should prove state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration timing when timing matters; broader proof should be reserved for a circumstance-specific state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration qualifier. The final state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration brief should assign each state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration burden and request a precise state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration ruling.

A state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration file should integrate three distinct state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration propositions. First: INA §237(a)(2)(B)(i) refers to a controlled substance as defined in 21 U.S.C. §802, so the federal schedules are the comparison point. Second: If the state statute is divisible by drug identity, the modified categorical approach can permit review of conviction documents to identify the controlled substance of conviction. Third: Counsel should preserve copies of historical state schedules, federal schedules, statutory definitions of isomers or analogues, charging documents, plea records, and state cases demonstrating actual prosecutions.

Those state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration propositions determine the state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration documents worth collecting. Certified records should prove state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration elements and sentence; historical materials should prove state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration timing when timing matters; broader proof should be reserved for a circumstance-specific state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration qualifier. The final state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration brief should assign each state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration burden and request a precise state federal drug schedule mismatch immigration ruling.