Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder; Escobar v. Holder
Court finds minor drug offenses should not lead to deportation (June 14, 2010)
The Supreme Court held that second or subsequent crimes of possession of drugs are not aggravated felonies under federal immigration law when the underlying state conviction is not based on the fact that there was a prior conviction.
The case concerns Jose Angel Carachuri-Rosendo, who became a lawful permanent resident of the United States after arriving in the country in 1993. In 2004, he pled guilty to misdemeanor possession of marijuana. One year later, he pled guilty to misdemeanor possession of Xanax, but was not tried as a recidivist. In 2006, Carachuri was notified that the government had initiated removal proceedings. He applied for removal cancellation, which was denied. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the decision.
On appeal, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The court contended that because Carachuri's second drug conviction could have been punished as a felony under the Controlled Substances Abuse Act, had he been prosecuted in federal court, the conviction qualified as an "aggravated felony" making him ineligible for cancellation of removal.
On June 14, 2010, a unanimous Supreme Court reversed the lower court order, in an opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens.
"Second or subsequent simple possession offenses are not aggravated felonies under §1101(a)(43) when, as in this case, the state conviction is not based on the fact of a prior conviction," Stevens wrote, adding: "One does not usually thin'aggravated felony.' This Court must be very wary in this case because the Government seeks a result that 'the English language tells [the Court] not to expect.'”
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas each filed opinions concurring in the judgment only.
Question presented: Has a person convicted under state law for simple drug possession been "convicted" of an "aggravated felony" on the theory that he could have been prosecuted as a recidivist, even though there was no charge or finding of a prior conviction in his prosecution for possession?