User:Gracedobie/sandbox

Pugin v. Garland

In Pugin v. Garland (2023), 143 S. Ct. 1833 (2023), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the broad definition of the obstruction of justice "aggravated felony ground included at 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)" (U.S. Supreme Court 2023, 2). The Court ruled that a conviction could constitute a crime "relating to obstruction of justice," even if there was no ongoing investigation or legal action that could have been foreseen. Pugin did this by overturning the Valenzuela Gallardo v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2020), a piece of persuasive Ninth Circuit case law.

In two separate immigration proceedings, non-U.S. citizens, Fernando Cordero-Garcia and Jean Francois Pugin were at risk of potentially being removed from the United States. Their predicament stemmed from convictions related to "obstruction of justice" under the provisions of 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and 1101(a)(43)(S). The Ninth Circuit, upon reviewing Cordero-Garcia's case, determined that Pugin’s state conviction for obstructing a witness from reporting a crime "did not qualify as an offense 'relating to obstruction of justice'" (U.S. Supreme Court 2023, 2). This judgment hinged on the fact that the state charge did not entail an ongoing inquiry or legal action.

Conversely, the Fourth Circuit arrived at a different conclusion in Pugin's case. They held that Pugin's state conviction for being an "accessory after the fact" constituted a crime that fell under the category of "relating to obstruction of justice," even though the state offense did not "necessitate inclusion in an ongoing inquiry or legal procedure" (U.S. Supreme Court 2023, 2).

The Court's opinion was delivered by Justice Kavanaugh. According to federal law, aliens convicted of an "aggravated felony" are deportable from the country. Offenses that "relate to obstruction of justice" are included in the definition of an "aggravated felony" on the federal or state levels. 8 U. S. C. §1101(a)(43)(S). The issue at hand is whether a crime "relates to obstruction of justice" under 1101(a)(43)(S) even though the offense does not "necessitate that an investigation or proceeding be ongoing" (U.S. Supreme Court 2023, 3). This issue arises because some obstruction acts, including threatening a witness to keep them from reporting a crime to the police, can take place even in the absence of an active investigation or legal action.

Background

Fernando Cordero-Garcia is a Mexican-born citizen. In 2009, Cordero-Garcia was found guilty of various California crimes, including preventing a witness from filing a police report. Mauritius is the country of origin for Jean Francois Pugin. Pugin was found guilty, in 2014, of the "Virginia offense of being an accessory after the fact to a felony" and as it relates to this situation, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security "accused Cordero-Garcia and Pugin of being removed" from the country due to their convictions for serious felonies, including acts "relating to obstruction of justice" (U.S. Supreme Court 2023, 3). See 8 U. S. C. 1101(a)(43)(S) and 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).

According to the U.S. Supreme Court article sourced by ScotusBlog, non-citizens who have been convicted of an "aggravated felony" are subject to removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) of 8 U. S. C. The term "aggravated felony" is used in the Act to refer to a variety of federal and state offenses. See §1101(a)(43). The term "aggravated felony" was enlarged by legislation that Congress approved in 1996 and President Clinton signed to cover actions "relating to obstruction of justice, perjury or subornation of perjury, or bribery of a witness, for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year," (ScotusBlog 2023, 10).

Opinion of the Court

In a 6-3 ‘reverse and remanded’ decision issued on June 22, 2023, by Justice Cavanaugh. Both the Board of Immigration Appeals and an Immigration Judge rendered decisions in favor of the Department. Consequently, the Courts of Appeals received a petition for review from Cordero-Garcia and Pugin. The Ninth Circuit found that Cordero-Garcia's state conviction "for preventing a witness from reporting a crime" did not amount to an offense "relating to obstruction of justice," because the state offense did not call for an ongoing investigation or legal action. 44 F. 4th 1181, 1188-1189 (2022), (U.S. Supreme Court 2023, 2). Contrarily, the Fourth Circuit found in Pugin's case that "his state conviction for accessory after the fact" constituted an offense "relating to obstruction of justice" even though the state charge did not call for an ongoing inquiry or legal action, (U.S. Supreme Court 2023, 2).

The "categorical approach" has typically been adopted by this Court to evaluate whether a prior conviction meets the criteria for a "aggravated felony" under 1101(a)(43). In accordance with this method, judges consider "the elements of the statute of conviction, not to the facts of each defendant's conduct." See United States v. Taylor, 495 U.S. 575, 601 (1990), (U.S. Supreme Court 2023, 6). The Court's task in this case is to identify the federal or state violations that "relate to obstruction of justice," not to create a new federal obstruction charge. In this instance, the issue is whether an offense "relates to obstruction of justice" under 1101(a)(43)(S) even if the offense requires no investigation or proceeding be pending. The "Model Penal Code, federal, state, and dictionary definitions all support the assertion "that a crime "relates to obstruction of justice" even if no inquiry or legal action is now active (U.S. Supreme Court 2023, 8).

Concurring and Dissenting Decision

The U.S. The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that even if there is no ongoing inquiry or legal action, "an offense may nonetheless act as an obstruction of justice" under section 1101(a)(43)(S), (U.S. Supreme Court 2023, 9).

In summary, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that an inquiry or proceeding is not necessary for a crime "relating to obstruction of justice" under 1101(a)(43)(S). Therefore, the Court rejected "Pugin and Cordero-Garcia's justification for removing their obstruction charges from the expansive scope of 1101(a)(43)(S). As stated by the U.S. Supreme Court, " as they " affirm the judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit" and "We reverse the judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion" (U.S. Supreme Court 2023, 10).

References

Golde, Kalvis. “Pugin v. Garland.” SCOTUSblog. Accessed September 24, 2023. https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/pugin-v-garland/. ​​

Hasan, Zayn. “Supreme Court Report: Pugin v. Garland, 22-23; Garland v. Cordero-Garcia, 22-331.” National Association of Attorneys General, January 30, 2023. https://www.naag.org/attorney-general-journal/supreme-court-report-pugin-v-garland-22-23-garland-v-cordero-garcia-22-331/.

“Supreme Court of the United States.” SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 22, 2023. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-23_d18e.pdf.