Pereida v. Wilkinson

Last updated
Pereida v. Wilkinson
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 14, 2020
Decided March 4, 2021
Full case nameClemente Avelino Pereida v. Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting Attorney General
Docket no. 19-438
Citations592 U.S. ___ ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Holding
Under the INA, certain nonpermanent residents seeking to cancel a lawful removal order bear the burden of showing they have not been convicted of a disqualifying offense.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan  · Neil Gorsuch
Brett Kavanaugh  · Amy Coney Barrett
Case opinions
MajorityGorsuch, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh
DissentBreyer, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan
Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)

Pereida v. Wilkinson, 592 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court (the Court) case in which the Court ruled that under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) an alien seeking to cancel a lawful removal order bears the burden of showing that he has not been convicted of a disqualifying offense. An alien has not carried that burden when the record shows he has been convicted under a statute limiting multiple offenses, some of which are disqualifying, and the record is ambiguous as to which crime formed the basis of his conviction.

Contents

Background

Under the INA, certain nonpermanent residents may seek to cancel an order of removal and adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence by applying to the United States Attorney General through the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), a subagency of the United States Department of Justice. As part of their application, the alien must demonstrate that they (1) have been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the application, (2) have been a person of good moral character during such period, (3) have not been convicted of an offense that would either render them inadmissible to be admitted to the United States or deportable from the United States, and (4) establishes that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien's qualifying relative who is a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident. [1]

Clemente Avelino Pereida was a citizen of Mexico who entered the United States without authorization or inspection in approximately 1995. He relocated to Nebraska with his family, was gainfully employed and paid taxes, and with his wife raised three children, one a U.S. citizen and another a Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipient. After an arrest, he was identified as an unlawfully present alien, and placed into removal proceedings in 2009. He did not contest his removability but instead applied to cancel his removal and adjust status to a lawful permanent resident. To demonstrate the requirements for cancellation of removal meant he had to produce records of his criminal history. But given his recent arrest, he was progressing through immigration proceedings in tandem with his criminal case.

In his criminal case, state authorities charged him with attempted criminal impersonation for using a false Social Security card to seek employment at National Service Company of Iowa. The Nebraska Statute section 28-608 (2008) charged four different means in which a person could violate attempted criminal impersonation. Pereida was found guilty under the statute, he paid a fine and served no jail time for the offense.

While Pereida identified his conviction for his cancellation of removal application, he declined to offer any evidence of his conviction. The United States Department of Homeland Security produced his criminal complaint but that document did not specify which of the four means he actually violated. That was problematic because three of the means were disqualifying offenses as a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) that rendered him inadmissible or deportable while one (carrying a business without a license) did not. Pereida argued that such ambiguity meant that his prior conviction could not be construed as a disqualifying offense to bar eligibility for relief. The EOIR Immigration Judge presiding over his case determined that Pereida's attempted criminal impersonation conviction was a CIMT that disqualified him from cancellation of removal and ordered him removed from the United States.

Pereida appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Although the BIA found no record as to which particular means he was convicted of violating, they noted that Pereida bore the burden of proving that his conviction was not a CIMT, and dismissed his appeal.

Pereida petitioned the Eighth Circuit claiming that his conviction does not fall within the definition of CIMT and that even if his conviction qualifies as a CIMT, it falls within the petty offense exception. The Eighth Circuit denied his petition holding that under the modified categorical approach they were unable to discern which means he was convicted. But because it was his burden to demonstrate eligibility for relief, he had the obligation to establish that his conviction was not a CIMT, and his failure to produce sufficient conviction records meant he did not carry his burden and thus was ineligible for cancellation of removal. The Eighth Circuit noted that the absence of the necessary substantive determination of the existence of a CIMT precluded any inquiry of the petty offense exception. Pereida petitioned for rehearing on en banc which the Eighth Circuit denied.

United States Supreme Court

Pereida petitioned for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court that was granted on December 18, 2019. [2] The Court heard oral arguments from the parties on October 14, 2020. [3] Prior to the oral arguments, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had died, while her replacement, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, had not yet been confirmed. As such, Justice Barrett did not participate in the case. [4] Before the Court, Pereida reiterated his argument that any ambiguity about his prior conviction meant that the crime could not be a disqualifying offense under the categorical approach and therefore would not bar eligibility for relief.

On March 4, 2021, the Court issued its opinion in a 5–3 ruling affirming the Eighth Circuit's decision. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Chief Justice John Roberts.

The Court found that the INA expressly requires individuals seeking relief from lawful removal orders to prove all aspects of their eligibility which includes proving they were not convicted of a disqualifying crime. The Court noted that Pereida agreed that he must prove three of the four statutory eligibility requirements for cancellation of removal for certain nonpermanent residents with the exception of proving the disqualifying offense. But the Court explained that there were two inquiries, factual and hypothetical. The factual inquiry was to determine which crime formed the basis of his conviction, and the hypothetical to ask whether someone could commit such crime of conviction without fraud, such as under the categorical approach. The Court found that Pereida's failure to produce any evidence as to the actual crime of conviction meant they could not proceed to tackle the hypothetical question, and thus he failed to carry his burden of proving he had not been convicted of a disqualifying crime, as required by the INA. [4]

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Breyer stated that placing the burden on the alien would require them "to introduce a wide range of documentary evidence and testimony to establish", creating a high standard of burden that many aliens may not be able to meet. [4] Breyer continued that the burden should be on the government to prove that the crime was one of moral turpitude rather than the alien, and that in Pereida's case, this had not yet been shown by the government. [1]

Related Research Articles

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 Key Provisions

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Division C of Pub.L. 104–208 (text)(PDF), 110 Stat. 3009-546, enacted September 30, 1996, made major changes to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). IIRIRA's changes became effective on April 1, 1997."

An Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility is an application for legal entry to the United States made by an individual who is otherwise inadmissible on one or more grounds. The application is submitted to the consular office, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office or immigration court considering the immigrant visa or adjustment of status application.

Actual innocence is a special standard of review in legal cases to prove that a charged defendant did not commit the crimes that they were accused of, which is often applied by appellate courts to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which confirmed that a sentencing enhancement based on a prior conviction was not subject to the Sixth Amendment requirement for a jury to determine the fact beyond a reasonable doubt.

Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004), held that aliens may not be deported after being convicted of DUI if the DUI statute that defines the offense does not contain a mens rea element or otherwise allows a conviction for merely negligent conduct.

Cancellation of removal is a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of the United States that allows some aliens who are in removal proceedings, who have lived in the United States for a long period of time and meet certain other conditions, to apply to remain in the United States and have the removal proceedings terminated. Cancellation of removal was crafted by the U.S. Congress to replace "suspension of deportation," a similar form of relief available prior to April 1, 1997.

Moral turpitude is a legal concept in the United States and prior to 1976, Canada, that refers to "an act or behavior that gravely violates the sentiment or accepted standard of the community". This term appears in U.S. immigration law beginning in the 19th century.

Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47 (2006), held that an "aggravated felony" includes only conduct punishable as a felony under the federal Controlled Substances Act, regardless of whether state law classifies such conduct as a felony or a misdemeanor. Under federal law, there are two main consequences of having a prior conviction for an "aggravated felony." One is that, if the convicted person is an alien, he will be deported. The other is that, with respect to certain federal crimes, a prior conviction for an aggravated felony provides a sentencing enhancement. In this case, Lopez had been convicted of conduct that was a felony under South Dakota law but was a misdemeanor under federal law. Accordingly, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this conviction could not serve as a basis for deporting him.

The term aggravated felony was used in the United States immigration law to refer to a broad category of criminal offenses that carry certain severe consequences for aliens seeking asylum, legal permanent resident status, citizenship, or avoidance of deportation proceedings. Anyone convicted of an aggravated felony and removed from the United States "must remain outside of the United States for twenty consecutive years from the deportation date before he or she is eligible to re-enter the United States.". The supreme court ruled 5-4 in Sessions v. Dimaya that the residual clause was unconstitutionally vague limiting the term.

Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the level of proof required to establish the affirmative defense of duress in a federal criminal case.

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court case involving habeas corpus and INA § 212(c) relief for deportable aliens.

Removal proceedings are administrative proceedings to determine an individual's removability under United States immigration law. Removal proceedings are typically conducted in Immigration Court by an immigration judge (IJ).

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled that the plenary power doctrine does not authorize the indefinite detention of immigrants under order of deportation whom no other country will accept. To justify detention of immigrants for a period longer than six months, the government was required to show removal in the foreseeable future or special circumstances.

Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S. 42 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving deportation law and procedure. The case involved a rule adopted by the Board of Immigration Appeals for determining the eligibility of certain long-term resident aliens, when they are facing deportation because of a prior criminal conviction, to apply to the Attorney General for relief. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Elena Kagan, the Court invalidated the BIA's "comparable-grounds rule" as arbitrary and capricious, holding that it had no rational relation to the merits of an alien's claim for remaining in the United States, nor to the policy and purposes of the immigration laws.

United States v. Kebodeaux, 570 U.S. 387 (2013), was a recent case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act (SORNA) was constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

Luna Torres v. Lynch, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided the interpretation of section 1101(a)(43) of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which includes "aggravated felony" as a possible reason for deporting a non-citizen. The INA specifies certain offenses described in the federal criminal code as qualifying as an aggravated felony. The question before the court was if the plaintiff Jorge Luna Torres, who had been convicted under a state arson statute mostly identical to the federal statute but lacking an interstate or foreign commerce element in the federal law, fell under this definition of aggravated felony. The Court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit original decision: the difference was merely "jurisdictional", and Torres still qualified for the accelerated deportation process described under the INA.

Executive Order 13768 Executive order signed by U.S. President Donald Trump

Executive Order 13768 titled Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States was signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on January 25, 2017. The order stated that "sanctuary jurisdictions" including sanctuary cities that refused to comply with immigration enforcement measures would not be "eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes" by the U.S. Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security.

Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 8–0 that in the context of statutory rape offenses that criminalize sexual intercourse based solely on the ages of the participants, the generic federal definition of “sexual abuse of a minor” requires the age of the victim to be less than 16. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the majority opinion.

Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), a statute defining certain "aggravated felonies" for immigration purposes, is unconstitutionally vague. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) classifies some categories of crimes as "aggravated felonies", and immigrants convicted of those crimes, including those legally present in the United States, are almost certain to be deported. Those categories include "crimes of violence", which are defined by the "elements clause" and the "residual clause". The Court struck down the "residual clause", which classified every felony that, "by its nature, involves a substantial risk" of "physical force against the person or property" as an aggravated felony.

Barton v. Barr, 590 U.S. __ (2020) is a Supreme Court of the United States ruling which upheld a decision by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that permanent residents could be rendered "inadmissible" to the United States for an offence after the initial seven years of residence under the Reed Amendment.

References

  1. 1 2 Barnes, Robert (March 4, 2021). "In Amy Coney Barrett's first signed majority opinion, Supreme Court sides with government over environmentalists". The Washington Post . Retrieved March 5, 2021.
  2. ↑ Pilger, Lori (December 22, 2019). "U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear a Crete man's immigration case". Lincoln Star-Journal . Retrieved March 5, 2021.
  3. ↑ Robinson, Kimberly (October 14, 2020). "Justices Lean Toward Relief for Longtime Immigrants". Bloomberg News . Retrieved March 5, 2021.
  4. 1 2 3 Robinson, Kimberely (March 4, 2021). "Gorsuch Delivers Blow to Some Longtime Immigrants, Families". Bloomberg News . Retrieved March 5, 2021.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.