Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Clemente Avelino Pereida v. Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting Attorney General

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, No. 17-3377 · judgment March 1, 2019

Decided · March 4, 2021

Pre-decision estimate: 5% cert probability (95% interval 3%–8%)

Before the decision, modestly above the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a circuit split argued in the petition, an Eighth Circuit decision below, and a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition).

Question presented

A noncitizen may not apply for relief from deportation, including asylum and cancellation of removal, if he has been convicted of a disqualifying offense listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The categorical approach (including its "modified" variant) governs the analysis of potentially disqualifying convictions. Under that approach, a conviction for a state offense does not carry immigration consequences unless it "necessarily" establishes all elements of the potentially corresponding federal offense. Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184, 190-91 (2013). Accordingly, four courts of appeals hold that a state conviction does not bar relief from removal if the state-court record is merely ambiguous as to whether the conviction involved the elements of the corresponding federal offense. In their view, ambiguity means the conviction does not "necessarily" establish the elements of the federal offense. Four other courts of appeals-including the Eighth Circuit below-take the opposite view. They hold that a merely ambiguous conviction is nonetheless disqualifying because the immigration laws place an evidentiary burden of proof on noncitizens to establish eligibility for relief. The question presented is: 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. PRESS RELEASE OF MARCH 16, 2020 IN KEEPING WITH PUBLIC HEALTH PRECAUTIONS RECOMMENDED IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19, THE SUPREME COURT IS POSTPONING THE ORAL ARGUMENTS CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR THE MARCH SESSION. 4/13/2020: ARGUMENT TO BE RESCHEDULED FOR THE OCTOBER TERM 2020

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Brian Philip Goldman
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

For respondent
Brian H. Fletcher
Acting Solicitor General

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Amicus briefs
5 merits
(4 supporting pet./neither, 1 respondent)

Argument & decision

Argued October 14, 2020 — Brian P. Goldman · Jonathan C. Bond. Audio and transcript

Decided March 4, 2021. Opinion by Gorsuch.

Proceedings

Aug 02 2021
Record returned to the U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit including the administrative record (1-Box).
Apr 05 2021
JUDGMENT ISSUED.
Mar 04 2021
Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Gorsuch, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Sotomayor and Kagan, JJ., joined. Barrett, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Oct 14 2020
Argued. For petitioner: Brian P. Goldman, San Francisco, Cal. For respondent: Jonathan C. Bond, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
Jul 13 2020
SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, October 14, 2020.
Apr 13 2020
Argument to be rescheduled for the October Term 2020.
Mar 30 2020
Reply of petitioner Clemente A. Pereida filed. (Distributed)
Mar 16 2020
ORAL ARGUMENT POSTPONED.
Mar 04 2020
Brief amicus curiae of Immigration Reform Law Institute filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2020
Brief of respondent William P. Barr, Attorney General filed. (Distributed)
Feb 26 2020
Record received from the U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit including the administrative record (1-Box).
Feb 24 2020
Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.
Feb 19 2020
CIRCULATED
Feb 19 2020
Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit.
Feb 04 2020
Brief amici curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. filed.
Feb 04 2020
Brief amici curiae of Former United States Immigration Judges and Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals filed.
Feb 04 2020
Brief amici curiae of Immigration Law Professors filed.
Feb 04 2020
Brief amici curiae of Immigrant Defense Project, et al. filed.
Jan 31 2020
SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, March 30, 2020.
Jan 28 2020
Brief of petitioner Clemente A. Pereida filed.
Jan 10 2020
Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Clemente A. Pereida.
Dec 18 2019
Petition GRANTED.
Dec 18 2019
As Rule 34.6 provides, “If the Court schedules briefing and oral argument in a case that was governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c) or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1(c), the parties shall submit electronic versions of all prior and subsequent filings with this Court in the case, subject to [applicable] redaction rules.” Subsequent party and amicus filings in the case should now be submitted through the Court’s electronic filing system, with any necessary redactions.
Nov 26 2019
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/13/2019.
Nov 25 2019
Reply of petitioner Clemente A. Pereida filed.
Nov 12 2019
Brief of respondent William P. Barr, Attorney General filed.
Oct 25 2019
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 2, 2019.
Oct 24 2019
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 1, 2019 to December 2, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
Sep 30 2019
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 1, 2019)
Sep 30 2019
Pursuant to Rule 34.6 and Paragraph 9 of the Guidelines for the Submission of Documents to the Supreme Court's Electronic Filing System, filings in this case should be submitted in paper form only, and should not be submitted through the Court's electronic filing system.