## Facts

- Adrian Moncrieffe, a Jamaican citizen and lawful permanent resident since 1984, was stopped in Georgia in 2008 and police found 1.3 grams of marijuana.
- He pleaded guilty under Georgia law to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and received no jail time.
- The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, alleging he was removable for a controlled-substance offense and as a noncitizen convicted of an “aggravated felony.”
- The Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals concluded the Georgia conviction was an aggravated felony as “illicit trafficking in a controlled substance,” making Moncrieffe removable and ineligible for several forms of discretionary relief.
- The Fifth Circuit denied review, treating the federal felony penalty for marijuana distribution as the default and declining to treat the federal misdemeanor treatment for small, nonremunerative distribution as controlling for categorical analysis.

## Issues

1. Whether a conviction under a state statute covering marijuana distribution, without requiring proof of remuneration or a threshold quantity, categorically constitutes an “aggravated felony” under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
2. Whether, under the categorical approach, an immigration adjudicator may treat such a conviction as an aggravated felony when the state statute reaches conduct that federal law treats as a misdemeanor (small amount of marijuana, no remuneration).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Georgia conviction did not categorically qualify as an aggravated felony.
- Applying the categorical approach, the Court required evaluation of the minimum conduct criminalized by the statute of conviction, not the case-specific facts.
- Because the Georgia statute encompassed conduct that federal law treats as a misdemeanor—distribution of a small amount of marijuana for no remuneration—the conviction did not “necessarily” correspond to a federal felony.
- The Court rejected shifting to factfinding in removal proceedings to determine whether Moncrieffe’s conduct involved remuneration or more than a small amount.
- The Court noted that Moncrieffe could still be removable for a controlled-substance conviction, but the conviction did not automatically bar discretionary relief by labeling it an aggravated felony.

## Legal Principles

- Under the categorical approach, a prior conviction triggers immigration consequences only if the statute of conviction necessarily establishes every element of the relevant federal predicate offense.
- When a state statute covers both conduct punishable as a federal felony and conduct punishable only as a federal misdemeanor, and the conviction record does not specify which, the conviction is not categorically an aggravated felony.
- For marijuana distribution, federal law treats distribution of a small amount for no remuneration as the equivalent of simple possession (a misdemeanor), preventing automatic classification as a felony predicate when the state statute is broader.
- The aggravated-felony inquiry generally turns on the conviction’s elements and the record of conviction, not later litigation of underlying facts in removal proceedings.

## Conclusion

A state marijuana distribution conviction that does not necessarily involve remuneration or more than a small amount of marijuana is not an “aggravated felony” for immigration purposes, so it does not automatically trigger the aggravated-felony bar to discretionary relief.


Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013)