Pereida v. Barr

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Pereida v. Barr
Term: 2020-2021
(Originally 2019-2020)
Important Dates
Argument: October 14, 2020
(Postponed from March 30, 2020)
Decided: March 4, 2021
Outcome
Affirmed
Vote
5-3
Majority
Neil Gorsuch • Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Brett Kavanaugh
Dissenting
Stephen Breyer • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan

Pereida v. Barr is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on October 14, 2020, during the court's October 2020-2021 term.

Oral argument was initially scheduled for March 30, 2020, during the court's October 2019-2020 term. However, the U.S. Supreme Court announced on March 16 that it was postponing the 11 oral arguments originally scheduled during its March sitting. In a press release, the court said the delay was "in keeping with public health precautions recommended in response to COVID-19."[1] COVID-19 was the abbreviation for coronavirus disease 2019, caused by SARS-CoV-2.

  • Click here for more information about the court's response to the coronavirus pandemic.
  • Click here for more information about political responses to the pandemic.

In a 5-3 ruling, the court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit's judgment, holding that in order to cancel a lawful removal order, a nonpermanent resident must show that they have not been convicted of a disqualifying offense under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and in this case, the petitioner did not meet that burden of proof since his record was ambiguous as to whether a disqualifying offense was cited as part of the basis of his conviction. Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Stephen Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Justice Amy Coney Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.[2] Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Clemente Avelino Pereida, a citizen and native of Mexico, was convicted of attempted criminal impersonation in Nebraska. The Department of Homeland Security charged Pereida with removability, or removal from the country. Pereida filed an application for relief from removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). An immigration judge found that Pereida's conviction constituted a crime involving moral turpitude, barring relief from removal. On appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals held that Pereida had not proven that his conviction was not a crime involving moral turpitude and as a result, he was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. The 8th Circuit denied Pereida's petition for review. Pereida appealed to the Supreme Court.
  • The issues: The case concerned the burden of proof required for nonpermanent residents to be eligible for removal relief under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
  • The questions presented: "Whether a criminal conviction bars a noncitizen from applying for relief from removal when the record of conviction is merely ambiguous as to whether it corresponds to an offense listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act."[3]
  • The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit's ruling.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit.[4] You can review the lower court's opinion here.[5]

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • March 4, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit's ruling.
    • October 14, 2020: Oral argument was heard.
    • March 16, 2020: The U.S. Supreme Court postponed its March sitting. Oral arguments in this case were initially scheduled for March 30, 2020.
    • December 18, 2019: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • September 30, 2019: Clemente Avelino Pereida filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • March 1, 2019: The United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit denied Pereida's petition for review.

    Background

    Clemente Avelino Pereida, a citizen and native of Mexico, entered the United States without authorization in 1995. According to his immigration record, Pereida was gainfully employed, paid taxes, and raised his three children in the U.S. In 2010, Pereida pleaded no contest to and was convicted of the misdemeanor offense of attempted criminal impersonation for using a fraudulent social security card in order to gain employment with the National Service Company of Iowa in Nebraska.[4][5]

    In August 2009, the Department of Homeland Security issued a notice to appear to Pereida and charged him with removability, or removal from the country, stemming from his conviction. Pereida admitted to the factual allegations in the notice and conceded to the charge of removability. In March 2011, Pereida filed an application for cancellation of removal.[5][6] In August 2014, the Department of Homeland Security filed a motion with an immigration judge to pretermit, or disregard, Pereida's application on the basis that he had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.[7] The immigration judge held that Pereida's conviction did qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude and barred his request for relief from removal.[5]

    On appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals reviewed the immigration judge's decision and agreed that only three subsections under the Nebraska statute in question qualified as crimes involving moral turpitude but did not find the specific statute underlying Pereida's conviction.[8][9] The Board found that the burden of proof was on Pereida to show that his conviction did not bar relief, but that he had not proven that his conviction was not a crime involving moral turpitude. The Board ruled that Pereida was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal.[5]

    In October 2018, Pereida petitioned the Eighth Circuit to review the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to affirm the ruling of the immigration judge. In March 2019, the court denied Pereida's petition for review.[5]

    Cancellation of removal

    The following definition is sourced from the United States Code:[6]

    “ (b) Cancellation of removal and adjustment of status for certain nonpermanent residents

    (1) In general

    The Attorney General may cancel removal of, and adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United States if the alien-
    (A) has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of such application;
    (B) has been a person of good moral character during such period;
    (C) has not been convicted of an offense under section 1182(a)(2), 1227(a)(2),or 1227(a)(3) of this title, subject to paragraph (5); and
    (D) establishes that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien's spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.[10]

    		”

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[3]

    Questions presented:
    “ *"Whether a criminal conviction bars a noncitizen from applying for relief from removal when the record of conviction is merely ambiguous as to whether it corresponds to an offense listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act."[10] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[11]



    Transcript

    Outcome

    In a 5-3 ruling, the court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit's judgment, holding that in order to cancel a lawful removal order, a nonpermanent resident must show that they have not been convicted of a disqualifying offense under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and in this case, the petitioner did not meet that burden of proof since his record was ambiguous as to whether a disqualifying offense was cited as part of the basis of his conviction. Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Stephen Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Justice Amy Coney Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.[2]

    Opinion

    In his opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote:[2]

    “ Everyone agrees that Clemente Avelino Pereida entered this country unlawfully, and that the government has secured a lawful order directing his removal. The only remaining question is whether Mr. Pereida can prove his eligibility for discretionary relief.


    Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), individuals seeking relief from a lawful removal order shoulder a heavy burden. Among other things, those in Mr. Pereida’s shoes must prove that they have not been convicted of a "crime involving moral turpitude." Here, Mr. Pereida admits he has a recent conviction, but declines to identify the crime. As a result, Mr. Pereida contends, no one can be sure whether his crime involved “moral turpitude” and, thanks to this ambiguity, he remains eligible for relief.

    Like the Eighth Circuit, we must reject Mr. Pereida’s argument. The INA expressly requires individuals seeking relief from lawful removal orders to prove all aspects of their eligibility. That includes proving they do not stand convicted of a disqualifying criminal offense.[10]

    		”
    —Justice Neil Gorsuch

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Stephen Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.[2]

    In his dissent, Justice Breyer wrote:[2]

    “ This case, in my view, has little or nothing to do with burdens of proof. It concerns the application of what we have called the “categorical approach” to determine the nature of a crime that a noncitizen (or defendant) was previously convicted of committing. That approach sometimes allows a judge to look at, and to look only at, certain specified documents. Unless those documents show that the crime of conviction necessarily falls within a certain category (here a "crime involving moral turpitude"), the judge must find that the conviction was not for such a crime. The relevant documents in this case do not show that the previous conviction at issue necessarily was for a crime involving moral turpitude. Hence, applying the categorical approach, it was not. That should be the end of the case. ...


    ... In my view, the Court should follow Congress' statute. Congress has long provided that immigration courts applying the INA provision here, like sentencing courts applying ACCA, must follow the categorical approach. See Mellouli, 575 U.S., at 805–806. Our cases make clear how that approach applies in a case like this one. We should follow our earlier decisions, particularly Taylor, Shepard, and Johnson. And, were we to do so, ineluctably they would lead us to determine that the statutory offense of which Mr. Pereida was "convicted" is not "necessarily" a "crime involving moral turpitude."

    Because the Court comes to a different conclusion, with respect, I dissent.[10]

    		”
    —Justice Stephen Breyer

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2020-2021

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 5, 2020. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[12]

    The court issued 67 opinions during its 2020-2021 term. Two cases were decided in one consolidated opinion. Ten cases were decided without argument. Click here for more information on the court's opinions.

    The court agreed to hear 62 cases during its 2020-2021 term. Of those, 12 were originally scheduled for the 2019-2020 term but were delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Five cases were removed from the argument calendar.


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Press release from March 16, 2020," accessed March 16, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 U.S. Supreme Court, Pereida v. Wilkinson, Acting Attorney General, decided March 4, 2021
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "19-438 PEREIDA V. WILKINSON, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL: Questions presented," accessed March 4, 2021
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 SCOTUSblog "Pereida v. Barr," accessed December 18, 2019
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit, "Pereida v. Barr," decided March 1, 2019
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 United States Code, "8 U.S.C. § 1229b," accessed December 20, 2019
    7. ↑ Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, "Moral Turpitude," accessed December 20, 2019
    8. ↑ Nebraska Revised Statutes, "Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-608," accessed December 20, 2019
    9. ↑ Nebraska Revised Statutes, "Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-638," accessed December 20, 2019
    10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    11. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," accessed October 19, 2020
    12. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court," accessed April 20, 2015
    v • e
    Ballotpedia
    About
    Editorial Content
    Geoff Pallay, Director of Editorial Content and Editor-in-Chief • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Doug Kronaizl, Local Elections Project Manager • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Thomas Ellis • Frank Festa • Nicole Fisher • Brianna Hosea • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Nathan Maxwell • Ellie Mikus • Jackie Mitchell • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Alexis Thacker • Janie Valentine • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Mercedes Yanora
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Pereida_v._Barr&oldid=9117321"