Pereida v. Wilkinson

Background

Clemente Avelino Pereida entered removal proceedings after admitting he was in the country unlawfully and then sought discretionary cancellation of his removal. While his immigration case was pending, Nebraska convicted him under a criminal impersonation statute that lists several different offenses. The immigration judge, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the Eighth Circuit all found the state statute divisible and concluded the record did not clearly show which of the listed crimes Pereida had been convicted of.

Reasoning

The Court explained the Immigration and Nationality Act puts the burden on an immigrant to prove eligibility for cancellation of removal, including that they have not been convicted of a disqualifying crime. Applying the so-called categorical and modified categorical approaches, judges must determine which specific statutory alternative formed the basis of a prior conviction. Because the Nebraska statute listed multiple crimes, some disqualifying and some not, Pereida needed to prove which specific offense he was convicted of and he did not. The Court therefore held he failed to meet his burden and is ineligible for cancellation.

Real world impact

The decision affects nonpermanent residents seeking discretionary relief: ambiguity in conviction records can defeat an application. The ruling underscores that applicants must produce clear court records about their prior convictions. The ruling is procedural and concerns proof and eligibility; the Attorney General’s discretion over whether to grant relief remains intact and the outcome could differ on a fuller evidentiary record.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Breyer’s dissent argued the Court should apply the categorical approach strictly and limit evidence judges may consult, so ambiguity in the listed records should have favored Pereida and led to a finding that his conviction was not necessarily disqualifying.