Adrian Moncrieffe v. Eric Holder, Jr.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22586
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Moncrieffe, a Jamaica-born permanent resident since 1984, pled guilty in 2008 to Possession of Marijuana With Intent to Distribute under Georgia law.
- DHS charged removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B) for a controlled-substances offense and § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) as an aggravated felony based on a CSA conviction.
- An IJ held the Georgia conviction analogized to a federal felony under 21 U.S.C. § 844(a)(1); the BIA affirmed the aggravated-felony classification.
- Moncrieffe argued the Georgia statute could cover misdemeanor conduct under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(4) for small amounts without remuneration since amount and remuneration were not shown.
- There is a circuit split on whether such state offenses default to felony or misdemeanor under § 841 for immigration purposes; the Fifth Circuit adopts the felony-default approach.
- The court denied Moncrieffe’s petition for review, holding the conviction qualifies as a federal felony for immigration purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moncrieffe's GA conviction is a CSA felony for immigration purposes | Conviction could be a misdemeanor under § 841(b)(4) absent evidence of amount or remuneration. | Default is a felony under § 841; immigration uses the felony classification for removal. | Conviction treated as federal felony; petition denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47 (Supreme Court 2006) (drug trafficking felony/misdemeanor framework adopted in immigration)
- Omari v. Gonzales, 419 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2005) (categorical approach; divisible statutes and Shepard framework)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (Supreme Court 2005) (evidence from charging documents, plea, and judge findings for divisible statutes)
- Walker, 302 F.3d 322 (5th Cir. 2002) (default sentencing range for marijuana distribution aligns with felony provision)
- Garcia v. Holder, 638 F.3d 511 (6th Cir. 2011) (Sixth Circuit adopts felony-default interpretation for § 841 in immigration)
- Martinez v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2008) (least culpable-offense approach in some circuits)
- Julce v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2008) (misdemeanor/default analysis in drug-offense context)
- Jeune v. Attorney General, 476 F.3d 199 (3d Cir. 2007) (immigration interpretations of § 841 in circuits)
- In re Matter of Aruna, 24 I. & N. Dec. 452 (BIA 2008) (BIA precedent on whether a state conviction is treated as a felony or misdemeanor)