Moncrieffe v. Holder
133 S. Ct. 1678
| SCOTUS | 2013Background
- INA classifies illicit drug trafficking as an aggravated felony, triggering deportation and loss of discretionary relief.
- Moncrieffe, a Jamaican national, was convicted in Georgia of possession with intent to distribute marijuana under Ga. Code Ann. § 16-13-30(j)(1) with probation and expungement after five years.
- The federal government sought to deport him, arguing the Georgia conviction fell under CSA § 841(a) and § 841(b)(1)(D) as a felony punishable under the CSA.
- The BIA and courts below treated the Georgia offense as categorically equivalent to a CSA felony, thus an aggravated felony.
- The Supreme Court rejected the government’s broad categorical approach, applying Carachuri-Rosendo’s framework that requires analyzing whether the state offense necessarily involves conduct punishable as a CSA felony, not merely whether elements align.
- The Court remanded to determine if Moncrieffe’s conviction necessarily involved remuneration or more than a small amount, which would trigger an aggravated felony under the INA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moncrieffe’s Georgia conviction is an aggravated felony under INA § 1101(a)(43)(B). | Moncrieffe; the Georgia crime is not necessarily a CSA felony. | Government; the Georgia offense is categorically a CSA felony. | No; not necessarily a CSA felony under the categorical approach. |
| Whether the INA requires a pure categorical approach or allows analysis of sentencing factors. | Moncrieffe; the record should determine if small amount/remuneration apply. | Government; factors like § 841(b)(4) may be considered. | Court adopts Carachuri-Rosendo approach, allowing some look beyond elements but limits on post hoc factfinding. |
| Whether § 841(b)(4) can convert a misdemeanor into a felony for INA purposes. | Not needed to show a CSA felony; remains a misdemeanor if only small amount/remuneration. | § 841(b)(4) creates a sentencing factor that could render conduct a felony. | § 841(b)(4) does not modify elements; but must be considered as part of the generic offense to determine if conduct is a felony under CSA. |
| Whether immigration proceedings may fact-find to classify predicate offenses. | Facts beyond the conviction record could show non-aggravated status. | The Government seeks post-conviction factfinding in immigration court. | Not permitted; the INA requires looking at what the noncitizen was convicted of, not post-conviction facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47 (2006) (defines ‘felony punishable under the CSA’ using federal law for status.)
- Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009) (recognizes circumstance-specific approach for some aggravated felonies.)
- Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. ---- (2010) (controls whether a state conviction can qualify when sentencing factors matter.)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (establishes the baseline for the categorical approach to define ‘burglary’ type offenses.)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (interprets the scope of what constitutes the conviction for a federal offense.)
- Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007) (categorical approach does not exclude state convictions unless realistic probability of outside definition.)
- United States v. Outen, 286 F.3d 622 (2002) (treats § 841(b)(4) as a mitigating exception in practice.)