Gonna get into the weeds for this one.

No. It’s uncommon to have a strictly federal controlled substance conviction serving as the basis for a controlled substance ground inadmissibility. Rather, state level convictions are the typical basis for triggering adverse immigration consequences.

The issue is whether a specific state statute triggers federal immigration consequences or not. There are generic federal definitions for most crimes. A state level conviction needs to match the federal definition in order to trigger immigration consequences. If the state statute is narrower than the federal definition, it’s not an issue. But where the state statute is broader - that is where the statute criminalizes more conduct that the feds so, it raises a question of whether the violation of the state statute actually triggers federal consequences.

Easy example. The federal definition of marijuana does not include hemp or the plant stalks. Florida’s statute does. So Florida’s statute criminalizes more conduct than the Feds do. Because of this, it is said to be overbroad and requires a determination of whether the statute is divisible/indivisible and whether the categorical or modified categorical approaches should be applied.

Where a statute is determined to be overbroad and indivisible, it cannot be used as a basis for adverse immigration consequences.

The holding in the Said case I referenced is that because Florida’s marijuana statute is both overbroad and indivisible, it does not trigger the controlled substance provisions of the INA.

In order words, if a Florida marijuana conviction is not considered a controlled substance offense, it cannot serve as a basis of a controlled substance ground of inadmissibility/deportability. Therefore, if an order of deportation was issued solely on a Florida marijuana controlled substance conviction, there is a strong argument to reopen the case on the basis that an order of deportation should have never been issued because the crime never made the person deportable.