## Facts

- Jose Angel Carachuri-Rosendo, a lawful permanent resident admitted in 1993, was convicted in Texas of two misdemeanor drug offenses.
- In 2004, he pled guilty to possession of less than two ounces of marijuana and received a 20-day jail sentence.
- In 2005, he pled guilty/no contest to possession of one Xanax tablet without a prescription and received a 10-day jail sentence.
- Although federal law can treat a second simple possession offense as a felony if prosecuted with a recidivist enhancement, Texas did not charge, seek, or obtain a recidivist enhancement in the second case.
- Federal immigration authorities initiated removal proceedings; Carachuri-Rosendo sought cancellation of removal, which is unavailable to a lawful permanent resident “convicted of any aggravated felony.”

## Issues

1. Whether a state conviction for simple drug possession constitutes an INA “aggravated felony” when it was not actually charged and adjudicated as a recidivist offense, but could have been prosecuted as a felony under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
2. Whether immigration adjudicators may treat a misdemeanor conviction as a “felony punishable under” the CSA based on a hypothetical recidivist prosecution rather than the actual record of conviction.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit unanimously.
- A second state simple-possession conviction that was not actually enhanced based on recidivism is not an “aggravated felony” barring cancellation of removal.
- The INA’s aggravated-felony bar turns on the conviction as obtained, not on whether prosecutors could have pursued a different, more punitive charging path.
- Because recidivist felony treatment under the CSA requires formal charging of the prior conviction and related procedural protections, an offense not prosecuted with those steps is not “punishable as a felony” for aggravated-felony purposes.
- The ruling removed the categorical aggravated-felony bar, leaving discretionary cancellation eligibility to be considered on the merits.

## Legal Principles

- The INA aggravated-felony inquiry focuses on what the noncitizen was “convicted” of, not on hypothetical facts or potential charging decisions.
- A “drug trafficking crime” includes a “felony punishable under” the CSA; simple possession is generally a misdemeanor under the CSA unless recidivist procedures are properly invoked.
- Recidivist simple possession under the CSA is felony-punishable only if the prior conviction is formally charged and the defendant receives notice and an opportunity to contest it.
- Immigration courts may not reclassify a misdemeanor state possession conviction as an aggravated felony solely because recidivist felony punishment might have been available in a different prosecution.
- Interpretive doubt in aggravated-felony determinations with severe immigration consequences is not resolved by expanding the category beyond what the conviction and required procedures establish.

## Conclusion

A noncitizen is not “convicted of an aggravated felony” based on a second state simple-possession conviction when the prosecution did not charge and prove recidivism with the required procedures; immigration adjudicators must assess the actual conviction rather than a hypothetical federal felony prosecution.


Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563 (2010)