Summary
The Supreme Court held that a state marijuana-distribution conviction is not categorically an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act when the conviction does not establish that the offense involved remuneration or more than a small amount of marijuana. Applying the categorical approach, the Court concluded that the conviction could correspond either to a federal felony or to the misdemeanor provision of the Controlled Substances Act. The Court reversed and remanded the Fifth Circuit’s decision.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a state conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute constitutes an aggravated felony under the INA when the state statute does not establish whether the offense involved remuneration or more than a small amount of marijuana.
- Whether the categorical approach permits immigration courts to determine, from facts outside the record of conviction, whether the state offense involved conduct punishable as a felony under the Controlled Substances Act.
- Whether 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(4) is relevant to determining whether the state conviction necessarily corresponds to a federal felony under the Controlled Substances Act.
Holdings
- A noncitizen's conviction for a marijuana distribution offense is not an aggravated felony under the INA if the conviction does not establish that the offense involved either remuneration or more than a small amount of marijuana.
- The categorical approach governs the determination whether a state drug conviction qualifies as the generic aggravated felony of illicit trafficking in a controlled substance.
- The INA and categorical approach do not permit immigration courts to conduct post hoc, case-specific factfinding to determine whether a predicate marijuana distribution conviction involved a small amount or remuneration.
Key quotations
“We must decide whether this category includes a state criminal statute that extends to the social sharing of a small amount of marijuana. We hold it does not.” (569 U.S. at 187)
“These dovetailing provisions create two mutually exclusive categories of punishment for CSA marijuana distribution offenses: one a felony, and one not.” (569 U.S. at 194)
“If a noncitizen's conviction for a marijuana distribution offense fails to establish that the offense involved either remuneration or more than a small amount of marijuana, the conviction is not for an aggravated felony under the INA.” (569 U.S. at 207)
Factual background
Moncrieffe, a Jamaican citizen who entered the United States legally as a child, was stopped by police in 2007 and found with approximately 1.3 grams of marijuana. He pleaded guilty under Georgia law to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. The state court withheld judgment and imposed probation under Georgia's first-offender statute. Federal immigration authorities treated the conviction as an aggravated felony and sought his removal, which would have made him ineligible for discretionary relief.
Procedural history
An Immigration Judge ordered Moncrieffe removed after determining that his Georgia conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute was an aggravated felony under the INA. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for review, holding that the federal felony provision in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(D) supplied the default punishment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, reversed, and remanded.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded to the Fifth Circuit for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion.