substance.”). As we have repeatedly held, solicitation of controlled substances is not an aggravated’ felony under the Con trolled Substances Act. See, e.g., Rivera-Sanchez, 247 F.3d at 909. Because Oregon’s definition of “delivery” includes solicitation, § 475.992(l)(a) is not a categorical match to a “drug trafficking crime.” Therefore, Sandoval’s conviction for delivery of heroin does not qualify as an aggravated felony under the categorical approach. Ill Our inquiry does not end here, however. We must next address whether the modified categorical approach may be used to determine whether Sandoval’s conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony. Only divisible statutes are subject to the modified categorical approach. See Lopez-Valencia v. Lynch, 798 F.3d 863, 867-69 (9th Cir. 2015) (<HOLDING>). “[Djivisibility hinges on whether the jury
holding that harmless beyond a reasonable doubt analysis not applicable in habeas cases holding that regulations that permitted an immigration official to reinstate removal orders violated the immigration and nationality act holding that the penalty is applicable holding descamps divisibility analysis is applicable in the immigration context holding that presumption is applicable in motion to dismiss context