TABLE OF CONTENTS
8 USC §1182(a)(2)(C)
Any alien who the consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has reason to believe-
(i) is or has been an illicit trafficker in any controlled substance or in any listed chemical (as defined in section 802 of title 21), or is or has been a knowing aider, abettor, assister, conspirator, or colluder with others in the illicit trafficking in any such controlled or listed substance or chemical, or endeavored to do so; or
(ii) is the spouse, son, or daughter of an alien inadmissible under clause (i), has, within the previous 5 years, obtained any financial or other benefit from the illicit activity of that alien, and knew or reasonably should have known that the financial or other benefit was the product of such illicit activity, is inadmissible.
<aside> ⚠️
In the 9th Circuit there is a lot of case law challenging this ground of inadmissibility.
</aside>
Matter of Casillas-Topete, 25 I. & N. Dec. 317 (BIA 2010) (an alien is removable under INA 237(a)(1)(A), as one who was inadmissible at the time of entry or adjustment of status pursuant to INA 212(a)(2)(C), where any appropriate immigration official knew or had reason to believe that the alien was a trafficker in controlled substances at the time of admission to the United States), modifying Matter of Rocha, 20 I. & N. Dec. 944 (BIA 1995) (limited to the inspecting officer only).
Matter of Rico, 16 I. & N. Dec. 181, 186 (BIA 1977); Alarcon-Serrano v. INS, 220 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000) (BIA did not rest on the evidence of Rico's arrest for drug trafficking, but detailed all of the evidence against him, including the undisputed fact that he had a "large quantity of marihuana concealed in his motor vehicle" at the time of his arrest).
Matter of Davey, 26 I&N Dec. 37 (BIA Oct. 23, 2012) (for purposes of INA 237(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) (2006), the phrase a single offense involving possession for ones own use of thirty grams or less of marijuana calls for a circumstance-specific inquiry; respondent convicted of more than one marijuana-related offense arising out of the same underlying facts may still meet the single offense exception).
Matter of Davey, 26 I&N Dec. 37, 38-39 (BIA Oct. 23, 2012) (Arizona convictions of possession of marijuana, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Statute 13-3405(A)(1), and possession of drug paraphernalia (the plastic bag in which the marijuana was contained), Ariz. Rev. Statute 13-3415(A), constituted a single offense involving a small quantity of marijuana, under INA 237(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), since Congress meant offense in this statute to refer to the totality of an aliens specific acts on a single occasion, so the exception is available to a noncitizen convicted of more than one statutory offense, provided that each crime involved a single incident in which the alien possessed a small amount of marijuana for personal use.); following the reasoning of Matter of Martinez-Espinoza, 25 I&N Dec. 118, 124 (BIA 2009) (we concluded that the term offense used in [INA] section 212(h) was best understood as refer[ring] to the specific unlawful acts that made the alien inadmissible, rather than to any generic crime.).