## Facts

- Jorge (George) Luna Torres, a lawful permanent resident and Dominican Republic citizen, lived in the United States since childhood.
- In 1999, New York charged him with arson-related offenses; he pleaded guilty to attempted third-degree arson under N.Y. Penal Law § 150.10.
- He received a sentence of one day in jail plus probation.
- Years later, the federal government placed him in removal proceedings based on the conviction.
- The government alleged the conviction was an INA “aggravated felony” because it was an offense “described in” the federal arson statute, 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), which includes a requirement that the property be “used in interstate or foreign commerce.”
- The New York statute lacked any interstate-commerce element, and Luna Torres argued that this mismatch prevented aggravated-felony classification.

## Issues

1. Whether a state offense is an INA “aggravated felony” “described in” a listed federal statute when it matches the federal offense’s substantive elements but lacks the federal statute’s interstate-commerce jurisdictional element.
2. Whether, under the categorical approach, the federal jurisdictional “commerce” element must be included when comparing a state conviction to a listed federal offense incorporated by reference in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit, upholding the agency’s determination that Luna Torres’s conviction was an aggravated felony.
- A state offense qualifies as an offense “described in” a listed federal statute when it contains all substantive elements of the federal crime, even if it omits the federal jurisdictional interstate-commerce element.
- The Court treated the interstate-commerce requirement in § 844(i) as a jurisdictional limitation on federal power rather than a substantive component defining the wrongful conduct.
- Dissenting Justices would have required an element-for-element match, including the federal jurisdictional element.

## Legal Principles

- For 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43) provisions that incorporate federal statutes by reference (“offense described in”), courts compare substantive offense elements and disregard federal jurisdictional elements that serve only to establish federal legislative authority.
- The INA’s instruction that enumerated aggravated felonies apply “whether in violation of Federal or State law” supports treating state analogs as covered even when federal statutes contain jurisdictional hooks absent from state law.
- Under the categorical approach, the analysis focuses on whether the state offense’s minimum conduct matches the substantive reach of the referenced federal offense, without requiring proof of federal jurisdictional facts.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a state conviction can be an INA aggravated felony “described in” a referenced federal statute even though the state offense lacks the federal statute’s interstate-commerce jurisdictional element, making Luna Torres removable and ineligible for cancellation of removal.


Luna Torres v. Lynch, 136 S. Ct. 1619 (2016)