Green Card Holder Loses Drug Mule Defense at BIA
A lawful permanent resident from Mexico was found at the Nogales, Arizona port of entry with 208 pounds of methamphetamine hidden in her car — and told immigration officials she had no idea it was there. The Board of Immigration Appeals ruled in October 2026 that her story did not hold up, reversed the Immigration Judge who had believed her, and sent the case back to immigration court. The decision shows how hard it is to win a "blind mule" defense when your own testimony keeps changing.
On June 22, 2025, Carol Y. Ozuna Mendoza crossed into the United States at Nogales, Arizona, just after 2:00 a.m. She had her three children with her. A vehicle scan found anomalies in all four doors and both rear quarter panels. A drug-detection dog confirmed narcotics. Agents pulled 193 separate packages of methamphetamine — totaling 208.35 pounds — from compartments throughout her car. The packages were wrapped in silver tape with red lettering and stuck to the vehicle body to avoid density scanners. She also had $7,886 in U.S. currency and 8,740 Mexican pesos on her person.
What the Immigration Judge got wrong, according to the BIA
The Immigration Judge terminated removal proceedings and found Ozuna Mendoza credible. DHS appealed. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) — the highest administrative immigration court in the U.S. — reversed that decision in October 2026, citing clear error. The BIA found her testimony "vague, evasive, and nonresponsive." When the judge asked directly whether she knowingly brought drugs into the country, she replied that her attorney told her she was a "blind mule" — a term for someone used as an unknowing drug carrier. That answer, the BIA said, did not actually deny knowledge; it deflected it. Her response about being a good mother and a tamale seller was not an answer to the question asked.
Immigration Deadlines 2026 — Free
Download PDF with all key dates
The BIA also found her account of where her car was — and why — kept shifting. At different points she said she lent the car to a friend to buy groceries, dropped it off for an 8-hour detail, or let a friend use it for a car wash while she got her hair done. None of those versions matched each other, and none was reconciled. She also admitted knowing her longtime friend had partners involved in drug trafficking, yet said she never asked about it because she disliked the partner. DHS charged her under INA § 212(a)(2)(C)(i), which makes a person inadmissible if there is "reason to believe" they knowingly participated in drug trafficking. The BIA found DHS met that standard by clear and convincing evidence. The case was remanded to the Immigration Court.
What this means for green card holders at the border
This ruling matters for any lawful permanent resident (LPR) who crosses the U.S.-Mexico border regularly. LPRs are generally treated as returning residents, not new applicants — but that protection disappears if DHS can show reason to believe the person participated in drug trafficking. You do not need a criminal conviction. The BIA's standard here is lower: "reason to believe" based on the totality of circumstances. Inconsistent statements to CBP officers, knowledge of a companion's drug ties, and implausible timelines can all count against you — even if you insist you knew nothing.
What to do
- If you are a green card holder who crosses the border frequently and CBP stops you for secondary inspection, you have the right to remain silent beyond basic identity questions. Lawyers recommend saying as little as possible and asking for an attorney before making detailed statements about your activities.
- If you are already in removal proceedings and DHS is charging you with drug trafficking inadmissibility under INA § 212(a)(2)(C)(i), do not assume an Immigration Judge's favorable ruling is final — DHS can and does appeal to the BIA, as this case shows.
- If your testimony in immigration court has been inconsistent, work with your attorney before any hearing to reconcile those statements in writing. Unexplained contradictions are one of the main reasons credibility findings are reversed on appeal.
- If you know people connected to drug trafficking, document that you kept your distance. The BIA treated Ozuna Mendoza's admitted awareness of her friend's trafficking ties — combined with her silence about it — as evidence against her.
A full breakdown of this topic — in our guide “Immigration Court Rulings”.
Fishkin Law Firm, New York
Under INA § 212(a)(2)(C)(i), DHS does not need a criminal conviction to bar a green card holder from re-entering the U.S. — "reason to believe" is enough, and inconsistent testimony can supply that reason on its own. If you are facing this charge, your attorney should file a detailed brief reconciling any prior statements before the remand hearing, because the BIA has already signaled it will scrutinize credibility closely. Do not go into an immigration court hearing on a drug trafficking inadmissibility charge without experienced legal representation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a green card holder be deported for drug trafficking even without a criminal conviction?
Yes. Under INA § 212(a)(2)(C)(i), DHS only needs to show 'reason to believe' you knowingly participated in drug trafficking. A criminal conviction is not required. The BIA applied this standard in the Ozuna Mendoza case decided in October 2026.
What is a 'blind mule' defense in immigration court?
A 'blind mule' is someone who unknowingly carries drugs across a border. In immigration court, claiming you did not know about the drugs can defeat a drug trafficking charge — but only if your testimony is consistent and believable. The BIA rejected this defense in the Ozuna Mendoza case because her account of where her car was kept changing.
Can DHS appeal if an Immigration Judge rules in my favor?
Yes. DHS can appeal an Immigration Judge's decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), just as a respondent can. In this case, the Immigration Judge terminated proceedings in the respondent's favor, and DHS appealed successfully. A win at the trial level is not the end of the case.
What happens after the BIA remands a case to the Immigration Court?
The case goes back to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings consistent with the BIA's ruling. In this case, that means the Immigration Court must now reconsider the removal charge against Ozuna Mendoza using the BIA's credibility findings. The respondent may still present additional evidence or arguments, but the BIA has already found her prior testimony not credible.