offense. Leslie v. Att’y Gen., 611 F.3d 171, 174 (3d Cir. 2010). Our standard of review is de novo. Id. at 175. King asserts that the Government failed to prove that he is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), which, as noted above, authorizes removal of an alien convicted of violating a state law “relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of Title 21).” King contends that the Government did not establish that his conviction involved a federally controlled substance. King is correct that the Government was required to show that his conviction “involved or implicated a drug defined in section 802 of Title 21.” Rojas v. Att’y Gen., 728 F.3d 203, 214 (3d Cir. 2013) (en banc). .See also Mellouli v. Lynch, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1980, 1990-91, 192 L.Ed.2d 60 (2015) (<HOLDING>). The administrative record, however, refutes
holding that it was not necessary for the state to prove that the defendant knew the precise nature of the controlled substance he was convicted of delivering when evidence established that he knew it was a controlled substance holding  1227a2bi limits the meaning of controlled substance for removal purposes to the substances controlled under  802 holding that possession of listed chemical with intent to manufacture controlled substance is controlled substance offense holding that mens rea required for possession of a controlled substance is knowledge that defendant possessed a controlled substance holding that quantity of the controlled substance does not have to be measurable to support a conviction for possession of such controlled substance particularly when the immeasurable amount of the substance is found on an implement used to consume the substance