Pereida v. Wilkinson
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Pereida v. Wilkinson and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Pereida v. Wilkinson.
In Pereida v. Wilkinson, the Supreme Court addressed whether Clemente Avelino Pereida, who was in removal proceedings, could prove his eligibility for cancellation of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Court found that Pereida bore the burden of proving he was not convicted of a disqualifying offense, and ambiguity in the record about his conviction meant he did not meet this burden. The decision affirmed the Eighth Circuit's ruling.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Pereida v. Wilkinson.
The Court held that under the INA, nonpermanent residents seeking to cancel a removal order must prove they have not been convicted of a disqualifying offense.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Pereida v. Wilkinson. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to Pereida v. Wilkinson
The case involves the allocation of the burden of proof in removal proceedings, which relates to the fairness of the procedure.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Under the INA, certain nonpermanent residents seeking to cancel a lawful removal order bear the burden of showing they have not been convicted of a disqualifying offense.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Pereida v. Wilkinson
The Court reviews the application of the categorical approach and the modified categorical approach in determining the nature of the conviction.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)In cases involving divisible statutes, the Court has told judges to determine which of the offenses an individual committed by employing a 'modified' categorical approach.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Pereida v. Wilkinson that support the summary and concepts above.
Mr. Pereida bore the burden of proving his eligibility for cancellation of removal.
An alien has not carried that burden when the record shows he has been convicted under a statute listing multiple offenses.
Congress was entitled to conclude that uncertainty about an alien's prior conviction should not redound to his benefit.
