The Supreme court issued a 5-3 ruling in Pereida v. Wilkinson, a case about whether an immigrant living in the country without authorization can seek relief from deportation for a minor crime. The court ruled that the noncitizen bears the burden to prove he is eligible for relief.
Clemente Pereida entered the United States without authorization nearly 25 years ago. In order to obtain employment at a cleaning company, Pereida allegedly presented a false Social Security card. He was subsequently convicted of a misdemeanor for attempting to commit the Nebraska crime labeled “criminal impersonation.” Pereida was sentenced to a fine of $100 and no jail time.
Illegal aliens who have a long history in the United States and close U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident family members are eligible to apply for a benefit that would cancel their deportation based on hardship to these relatives. This benefit, however, is not available to individuals without immigration status who have been convicted of a “crime of moral turpitude” under section 240A(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Nebraska’s criminal impersonation law includes several distinct offenses. Those versions that require intent to deceive are considered crimes involving moral turpitude under federal law and trigger immigration consequences. The other versions do not. Pereida’s criminal record, however, does not make clear which version of the offense he was convicted of.
The government argued that the statutory burden of proof placed on the immigrant seeking relief applies to the provision covering disqualifying crimes, and because Pereida could not prove that he was not convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, he was ineligible for relief. Consequently, an immigration judge could not consider the hardship that his deportation would have on his U.S. citizen child. Pereida argued that this rule breaks with the court’s precedent on how to determine whether state criminal convictions trigger immigration consequences under federal law.
Neil Gorsuch, authoring the majority opinion, wrote, “The Immigration and Nationality Act expressly requires individuals seeking relief from lawful removal orders to prove all aspects of their eligibility. That includes proving they do not stand convicted of a disqualifying criminal offense.”
It has been part of American jurisprudence for many years that non-citizens do not enjoy all the same benefits as citizens. This ruling reaffirms that postiton.