Shenisa Mohammed v. Pamela Bondi, 129 F.4th 988

Shenisa Mohammed, a lawful permanent resident from Trinidad and Tobago, was convicted of arson under Virginia law (Va. Code § 18.2-77).
Following her conviction, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, asserting her arson conviction qualified as an "aggravated felony" under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
Mohammed challenged the removal, seeking cancellation of removal before an immigration judge (IJ), who ruled her conviction was an aggravated felony, making her removable and ineligible for relief.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision.
Mohammed timely petitioned for review in the Sixth Circuit, arguing her Virginia arson conviction does not meet the federal definition of an "aggravated felony."

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a Virginia arson conviction qualifies as an "aggravated felony" under the INA by comparison to federal arson law.	Virginia law is broader because it covers aiding and abetting explicitly, which is not explicitly covered in the federal statute, making it outside the categorical match required for an aggravated felony.	The federal arson statute, via 18 U.S.C. § 2, incorporates aiding and abetting liability, making the statutes equivalent for categorical approach purposes.	The Virginia statute is not broader, and the conviction is an aggravated felony; petition denied.

Mellouli v. Lynch, 575 U.S. 798 (2015) (categorical approach focuses on the elements of the statute of conviction, not the facts of the individual case)
Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 581 U.S. 385 (2017) (outlining the categorical approach to determining aggravated felony status under the INA)
Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007) (aiding and abetting liability is treated the same as principal liability in federal criminal law)