Bartosz Kasinski v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BARTOSZ KASINSKI,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1956
Agency No.
A028-119-063
MEMORANDUM*
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.
FILED
NOV 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-1956
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 controlled-
substance 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 Romero-
Millan 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 of 3 --

3 22-1956
judge panel may not overrule a prior decision of the court.”)
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --