Delfino Rodriguez-Contreras v. Jefferson B. Sessions III
873 F.3d 579
7th Cir.2017Background
- Rodriguez-Contreras, a lawful permanent resident from Mexico, was convicted in Illinois under 720 ILCS 5/24–1.1(a) for possession of a weapon after a prior felony and served 30 months.
- Federal immigration law (8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(43)(E) read with 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1)) deems a felon-in-possession conviction an "aggravated felony," making the alien removable without discretionary relief.
- The central question: whether the Illinois statute "categorically" matches the federal definition of felon-in-possession (§922(g)(1)) so that the state conviction is an aggravated felony for immigration purposes.
- Illinois law defines "firearm" to include weapons propelled by "expansion of gas or escape of gas," and excludes some pneumatic guns below a velocity threshold; federal law limits "firearm" to weapons using an "explosive" to expel a projectile.
- Evidence (including Illinois appellate precedent) shows Illinois prosecutes felons for possessing pneumatic/air rifles; pneumatic devices generally do not qualify as "firearms" under federal law because compressed air is not an explosive.
- The immigration judge treated the Illinois statute as divisible and relied on charging documents to classify Rodriguez-Contreras’s conviction as an aggravated felony; the Seventh Circuit rejected divisibility and held the state statute is broader than the federal definition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 720 ILCS 5/24–1.1(a) categorically matches 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1) | Rodriguez-Contreras: Illinois statute covers pneumatic weapons that fall outside §922(g)(1) so it does not categorically match | Government: Practical overlap means the statutes match; prior Seventh Circuit decisions treated the Illinois offense as an aggravated felony | Held: The Illinois statute is broader (covers non-explosive pneumatic weapons) and does not categorically match §922(g)(1) |
| Whether pneumatic/air guns fall within federal "firearm" definition | Rodriguez-Contreras: Compressed air is not an explosive; pneumatic weapons are not federal firearms | Government: Illinois prosecutes such weapons and practical enforcement aligns statutes | Held: Under federal definition (18 U.S.C. §921(a)(3)) pneumatic weapons are not "firearms" because they do not use an explosive |
| Whether the Illinois statute is divisible (allowing looking to charging papers) | Rodriguez-Contreras: The statute creates a single offense with multiple means; not divisible | Government / IJ: The statute creates distinct offenses (divisible) permitting document-based inquiry | Held: The statute is not divisible; it criminalizes one offense with alternative means, so categorical approach applies |
| Consequence for removal / discretionary relief | Rodriguez-Contreras: Because conviction is not an aggravated felony, he remains eligible for discretionary relief | Government: Removal appropriate based on aggravated-felony characterization | Held: Conviction is not an aggravated felony; immigration authorities retain discretion and proceedings are remanded to determine next steps |
Key Cases Cited
- Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562 (2017) (categorical approach for determining matching offenses)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013) (categorical-matching and consideration of discretionary relief)
- Negrete-Rodriguez v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 497 (7th Cir. 2008) (prior Seventh Circuit decision addressing commerce element but not substantive element matching)
- Estrada-Hernandez v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 324 (7th Cir. 2016) (Seventh Circuit precedent on Illinois felon-in-possession in immigration context)
- Torres v. Lynch, 136 S. Ct. 1619 (2016) (state crimes matching federal definition despite missing federal jurisdictional element)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (distinguishing divisible statutes from single crimes with alternative means)
- United States v. Castillo-Rivera, 853 F.3d 218 (5th Cir. 2017) (pneumatic weapons not federal "firearms")
- United States v. Crooker, 608 F.3d 94 (1st Cir. 2010) (pneumatic devices outside federal firearm definition)