Controlled-Substance Schedule Comparison at the Time of Conviction

Which version of the state and federal controlled-substance schedules governs categorical matching, with focus on Matter of Dor and schedule changes over time.

Matter of Dor, 29 I&N Dec. 20 (BIA 2025), addresses the temporal comparison for controlled-substance convictions and focuses the categorical analysis on the schedules applicable at the time of conviction rather than later changes before removal proceedings.

For controlled substance time of conviction immigration, the practitioner should map the controlled substance time of conviction immigration charge before making concessions. The controlled substance time of conviction immigration map should identify the conviction, the controlled substance time of conviction immigration statutory comparator, the governing controlled substance time of conviction immigration method, and the evidence that current controlled substance time of conviction immigration law permits.

Drug schedules change, so a substance can be controlled under state or federal law at conviction and later be removed, renamed, or rescheduled.

Within controlled substance time of conviction immigration, this proposition narrows the controlled substance time of conviction immigration dispute. The clause “Drug schedules change” must be linked to controlled substance time of conviction immigration authority before “so a substance can be controlled under state or federal law at conviction and later be removed” is treated as established. Matter of Dor, 29 I&N Dec. 20 (BIA 2025) supplies a published controlled substance time of conviction immigration reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A controlled substance time of conviction immigration record on rule 1 should identify the controlled substance time of conviction immigration document proving the conviction, the controlled substance time of conviction immigration source proving the legal rule, and the controlled substance time of conviction immigration fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific controlled substance time of conviction immigration structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative controlled substance time of conviction immigration requirement.

Matter of Dor treats the time of conviction as the relevant temporal reference for the state-federal comparison in the controlled-substance categorical analysis.

Within controlled substance time of conviction immigration, this proposition controls the controlled substance time of conviction immigration dispute. The clause “Matter of Dor treats the time of conviction as the relevant” must be linked to controlled substance time of conviction immigration authority before “temporal reference for the state-federal comparison in the controlled-substance categorical analysis.” is treated as established. Mellouli v. Lynch, 575 U.S. 798 (2015) supplies a published controlled substance time of conviction immigration reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A controlled substance time of conviction immigration record on rule 2 should identify the controlled substance time of conviction immigration document proving the conviction, the controlled substance time of conviction immigration source proving the legal rule, and the controlled substance time of conviction immigration fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific controlled substance time of conviction immigration structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative controlled substance time of conviction immigration requirement.

Counsel should retrieve historical versions of both the convicting jurisdiction's schedule and the federal schedules rather than rely on current online lists.

Within controlled substance time of conviction immigration, this proposition structures the controlled substance time of conviction immigration dispute. The clause “Counsel should retrieve historical versions of both the convicting jurisdiction's schedule” must be linked to controlled substance time of conviction immigration authority before “and the federal schedules rather than rely on current online lists.” is treated as established. Matter of Felix-Figueroa, 29 I&N Dec. 157 (BIA 2025) supplies a published controlled substance time of conviction immigration reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A controlled substance time of conviction immigration record on rule 3 should identify the controlled substance time of conviction immigration document proving the conviction, the controlled substance time of conviction immigration source proving the legal rule, and the controlled substance time of conviction immigration fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific controlled substance time of conviction immigration structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative controlled substance time of conviction immigration requirement.

A later federal descheduling does not automatically rewrite the elements or federal match that existed when the conviction was entered under Dor's framework.

Within controlled substance time of conviction immigration, this proposition changes the controlled substance time of conviction immigration dispute. The clause “A later federal descheduling does not automatically rewrite the elements or” must be linked to controlled substance time of conviction immigration authority before “federal match that existed when the conviction was entered under Dor's framework.” is treated as established. Matter of Dor, 29 I&N Dec. 20 (BIA 2025) supplies a published controlled substance time of conviction immigration reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A controlled substance time of conviction immigration record on rule 4 should identify the controlled substance time of conviction immigration document proving the conviction, the controlled substance time of conviction immigration source proving the legal rule, and the controlled substance time of conviction immigration fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific controlled substance time of conviction immigration structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative controlled substance time of conviction immigration requirement.

Conversely, a substance added to the federal schedules only after conviction cannot automatically cure a mismatch that existed when the conviction occurred.

Within controlled substance time of conviction immigration, this proposition directs the controlled substance time of conviction immigration dispute. The clause “Conversely” must be linked to controlled substance time of conviction immigration authority before “a substance added to the federal schedules only after conviction cannot automatically cure a mismatch that existed when the conviction occurred.” is treated as established. Mellouli v. Lynch, 575 U.S. 798 (2015) supplies a published controlled substance time of conviction immigration reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A controlled substance time of conviction immigration record on rule 5 should identify the controlled substance time of conviction immigration document proving the conviction, the controlled substance time of conviction immigration source proving the legal rule, and the controlled substance time of conviction immigration fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific controlled substance time of conviction immigration structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative controlled substance time of conviction immigration requirement.

The conviction date must be identified accurately, particularly in deferred-adjudication or amended-judgment cases where state terminology may obscure when immigration law recognizes the conviction.

Within controlled substance time of conviction immigration, this proposition governs the controlled substance time of conviction immigration dispute. The clause “The conviction date must be identified accurately” must be linked to controlled substance time of conviction immigration authority before “particularly in deferred-adjudication or amended-judgment cases where state terminology may obscure when immigration law recognizes the conviction.” is treated as established. Matter of Felix-Figueroa, 29 I&N Dec. 157 (BIA 2025) supplies a published controlled substance time of conviction immigration reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A controlled substance time of conviction immigration record on rule 6 should identify the controlled substance time of conviction immigration document proving the conviction, the controlled substance time of conviction immigration source proving the legal rule, and the controlled substance time of conviction immigration fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific controlled substance time of conviction immigration structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative controlled substance time of conviction immigration requirement.

Schedule timing is separate from finality, vacatur, and post-conviction relief; each doctrine has its own rules.

Within controlled substance time of conviction immigration, this proposition resolves the controlled substance time of conviction immigration dispute. The clause “Schedule timing is separate from finality” must be linked to controlled substance time of conviction immigration authority before “vacatur” is treated as established. Matter of Dor, 29 I&N Dec. 20 (BIA 2025) supplies a published controlled substance time of conviction immigration reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A controlled substance time of conviction immigration record on rule 7 should identify the controlled substance time of conviction immigration document proving the conviction, the controlled substance time of conviction immigration source proving the legal rule, and the controlled substance time of conviction immigration fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific controlled substance time of conviction immigration structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative controlled substance time of conviction immigration requirement.

An amended criminal judgment that changes the statute or substance can require a new immigration analysis, but a clerical change does not necessarily alter the conviction.

Within controlled substance time of conviction immigration, this proposition frames the controlled substance time of conviction immigration dispute. The clause “An amended criminal judgment that changes the statute or substance can require a new immigration analysis” must be linked to controlled substance time of conviction immigration authority before “but a clerical change does not necessarily alter the conviction.” is treated as established. Mellouli v. Lynch, 575 U.S. 798 (2015) supplies a published controlled substance time of conviction immigration reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A controlled substance time of conviction immigration record on rule 8 should identify the controlled substance time of conviction immigration document proving the conviction, the controlled substance time of conviction immigration source proving the legal rule, and the controlled substance time of conviction immigration fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific controlled substance time of conviction immigration structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative controlled substance time of conviction immigration requirement.

Historical schedule evidence should be authenticated or presented from reliable official legislative, regulatory, or agency sources whenever possible.

Within controlled substance time of conviction immigration, this proposition limits the controlled substance time of conviction immigration dispute. The clause “Historical schedule evidence should be authenticated or presented from reliable official legislative” must be linked to controlled substance time of conviction immigration authority before “regulatory” is treated as established. Matter of Felix-Figueroa, 29 I&N Dec. 157 (BIA 2025) supplies a published controlled substance time of conviction immigration reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A controlled substance time of conviction immigration record on rule 9 should identify the controlled substance time of conviction immigration document proving the conviction, the controlled substance time of conviction immigration source proving the legal rule, and the controlled substance time of conviction immigration fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific controlled substance time of conviction immigration structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative controlled substance time of conviction immigration requirement.

The temporal rule can affect both ordinary controlled-substance deportability and aggravated-felony trafficking analysis if federal felony correspondence depends on the controlled drug.

Within controlled substance time of conviction immigration, this proposition defines the controlled substance time of conviction immigration dispute. The clause “The temporal rule can affect both ordinary controlled-substance deportability and aggravated-felony” must be linked to controlled substance time of conviction immigration authority before “trafficking analysis if federal felony correspondence depends on the controlled drug.” is treated as established. Matter of Dor, 29 I&N Dec. 20 (BIA 2025) supplies a published controlled substance time of conviction immigration reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A controlled substance time of conviction immigration record on rule 10 should identify the controlled substance time of conviction immigration document proving the conviction, the controlled substance time of conviction immigration source proving the legal rule, and the controlled substance time of conviction immigration fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific controlled substance time of conviction immigration structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative controlled substance time of conviction immigration requirement.

Matter of Dor, 29 I&N Dec. 20 (BIA 2025) matters to controlled substance time of conviction immigration because its holding addresses a controlled substance time of conviction immigration component reflected in this rule: Drug schedules change, so a substance can be controlled under state or federal law at conviction and later be removed, renamed, or rescheduled.

Applying Matter of Dor, 29 I&N Dec. 20 (BIA 2025) to controlled substance time of conviction immigration also requires attention to this separate controlled substance time of conviction immigration proposition: Matter of Dor treats the time of conviction as the relevant temporal reference for the state-federal comparison in the controlled-substance categorical analysis. The controlled substance time of conviction immigration brief should use the case for those propositions and avoid extending the controlled substance time of conviction immigration holding beyond its procedural posture.

Mellouli v. Lynch, 575 U.S. 798 (2015) matters to controlled substance time of conviction immigration because its holding addresses a controlled substance time of conviction immigration component reflected in this rule: Counsel should retrieve historical versions of both the convicting jurisdiction's schedule and the federal schedules rather than rely on current online lists.

Applying Mellouli v. Lynch, 575 U.S. 798 (2015) to controlled substance time of conviction immigration also requires attention to this separate controlled substance time of conviction immigration proposition: A later federal descheduling does not automatically rewrite the elements or federal match that existed when the conviction was entered under Dor's framework. The controlled substance time of conviction immigration brief should use the case for those propositions and avoid extending the controlled substance time of conviction immigration holding beyond its procedural posture.

Matter of Felix-Figueroa, 29 I&N Dec. 157 (BIA 2025) matters to controlled substance time of conviction immigration because its holding addresses a controlled substance time of conviction immigration component reflected in this rule: Conversely, a substance added to the federal schedules only after conviction cannot automatically cure a mismatch that existed when the conviction occurred.

Applying Matter of Felix-Figueroa, 29 I&N Dec. 157 (BIA 2025) to controlled substance time of conviction immigration also requires attention to this separate controlled substance time of conviction immigration proposition: The conviction date must be identified accurately, particularly in deferred-adjudication or amended-judgment cases where state terminology may obscure when immigration law recognizes the conviction. The controlled substance time of conviction immigration brief should use the case for those propositions and avoid extending the controlled substance time of conviction immigration holding beyond its procedural posture.

A controlled substance time of conviction immigration file should integrate three distinct controlled substance time of conviction immigration propositions. First: Drug schedules change, so a substance can be controlled under state or federal law at conviction and later be removed, renamed, or rescheduled. Second: A later federal descheduling does not automatically rewrite the elements or federal match that existed when the conviction was entered under Dor's framework. Third: Schedule timing is separate from finality, vacatur, and post-conviction relief; each doctrine has its own rules.

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

A controlled substance time of conviction immigration file should integrate three distinct controlled substance time of conviction immigration propositions. First: Matter of Dor treats the time of conviction as the relevant temporal reference for the state-federal comparison in the controlled-substance categorical analysis. Second: Conversely, a substance added to the federal schedules only after conviction cannot automatically cure a mismatch that existed when the conviction occurred. Third: An amended criminal judgment that changes the statute or substance can require a new immigration analysis, but a clerical change does not necessarily alter the conviction.

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

A controlled substance time of conviction immigration file should integrate three distinct controlled substance time of conviction immigration propositions. First: Counsel should retrieve historical versions of both the convicting jurisdiction's schedule and the federal schedules rather than rely on current online lists. Second: The conviction date must be identified accurately, particularly in deferred-adjudication or amended-judgment cases where state terminology may obscure when immigration law recognizes the conviction. Third: Historical schedule evidence should be authenticated or presented from reliable official legislative, regulatory, or agency sources whenever possible.

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

A controlled substance time of conviction immigration file should integrate three distinct controlled substance time of conviction immigration propositions. First: A later federal descheduling does not automatically rewrite the elements or federal match that existed when the conviction was entered under Dor's framework. Second: Schedule timing is separate from finality, vacatur, and post-conviction relief; each doctrine has its own rules. Third: The temporal rule can affect both ordinary controlled-substance deportability and aggravated-felony trafficking analysis if federal felony correspondence depends on the controlled drug.

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

A controlled substance time of conviction immigration file should integrate three distinct controlled substance time of conviction immigration propositions. First: Drug schedules change, so a substance can be controlled under state or federal law at conviction and later be removed, renamed, or rescheduled. Second: The conviction date must be identified accurately, particularly in deferred-adjudication or amended-judgment cases where state terminology may obscure when immigration law recognizes the conviction. Third: The temporal rule can affect both ordinary controlled-substance deportability and aggravated-felony trafficking analysis if federal felony correspondence depends on the controlled drug.

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