Criminal conduct may affect a noncitizen’s eligibility for U.S. immigration benefits or ability to stay with his family members in the U.S. The categorical approach is the main legal framework used to evaluate whether a crime committed by noncitizens renders them removable or ineligible for immigration benefits. Under this approach, the elements of the crime for which noncitizens are charged and convicted are compared with those of the generic definition of the criminal ground provided by the immigration statute to determine if the crime is an inadmissible or deportable offense.
The categorical approach focuses on the statutory elements of the crime rather than the specific facts of an individual's case. A criminal case typically requires application of the law to the established facts to determine whether a defendant is guilty of the crime. It is the role of the criminal court to make findings of the facts and apply the law to those facts to establish the defendant’s guilt, and then declare that he is convicted of the crime for which he is charged. Aiming to avoid subsequent minitrials conducted by immigration officials while determining immigration consequences of criminal court convictions, the categorical approach requires the underlying facts for the criminal conviction be ignored, while only the legal elements of the applicable criminal statute be considered. Under this approach, the elements of the noncitizen's offense are compared with the generic definition of the same offense under federal law. By doing so, the focus is placed on the essential nature of the crime rather than the unique circumstances surrounding commission of the crime.
While the categorical approach is the primary method for classifying crimes, there are situations where the modified categorical approach comes into play and helps ascertain which specific provision of the criminal statute was violated by the noncitizen. The modified categorical approach is applicable when the underlying criminal statute of conviction is divisible; the divisible statute contains multiple alternative elements that constitute different, distinct, and functionally separate crimes. The modified categorical approach, allowing for a limited examination of certain documents, such as charging documents, plea agreements, and jury instructions, is employed to determine which specific provision of the law was violated. Once the specific provision is singled out and identified, the categorical approach is once again used to compare the elements of the specific provision with the generic definition of the immigration ground.
The legal analysis under the categorical approach often starts with finding out the elements of the conviction statute and the generic definition. The elements of the conviction statute, referring to constituent parts of a crime, including criminal intent, culpable conduct and resulting harm, are typically provided by the criminal statute or common law. Court precedents interpreting the statute and jury instructions given to the jury can also help identify the elements of a particular crime. On the other side of the comparison is the generic definition of the immigration criminal ground. The immigration statutes typically provide only a list of the crimes that carry certain immigration consequences. Very rarely, these statutes actually define the individual crimes mentioned in the list. Absent statutory definitions, the generic definition, used for immigration purposes, may come from a variety of legal sources. Sometimes a federal criminal statute provides the generic definition of a particular offense listed in the immigration statute, and at other times, the common law and court cases supply the generic definition for such offense. The generic definition serves as a point of comparison to determine whether a noncitizen’s criminal conviction will carry any immigration consequence.
After the crime elements and generic definition are ascertained, the next step is to compare them and determine whether they constitute a categorical match. To establish the categorical match, the elements of the noncitizen's offense must be identical or narrower than the generic federal definition. If any element of the noncitizen's crime is deemed broader, the offense cannot be considered a categorical match. The methodology used to make the comparison is the realistic probability test developed by courts. Under this test, the minimum conduct under the conviction statute is first identified and then evaluated to find out whether there is a realistic probability that such minimum conduct would be prosecuted and punished under the criminal statute. If the minimum conduct falls within the generic definition, there is a categorical match. However, if the minimum conduct is broader than what is covered under the generic definition, there is no categorical match. Legal resources, including court case records and precedential opinions, are invaluable tools for identifying the minimum conduct that is prosecuted and punished under the criminal law and analyzing whether a noncitizen's crime falls within the parameters of the generic federal offense.
Among the crimes listed in the INA, aggravated felonies and crimes involving moral turpitude are the two most significant categories of crimes that heavily rely on the categorical approach for proper classification. Noncitizens convicted of aggravated felonies face mandatory detention and are permanently ineligible for most forms of relief. Aggravated felony is defined broadly to encompass various offenses, including murder, rape, drug trafficking, crime of violence, and certain theft offenses. To determine whether a noncitizen's offense qualifies as an aggravated felony, the categorical approach is applied, requiring an analysis of the elements of the crime in comparison to the generic federal definition.
Another group of crimes carrying significant immigration consequences consists of crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs). While the term "moral turpitude" lacks a precise definition in immigration law, it generally refers to offenses involving dishonesty, fraud, or depravity. CIMTs can result in inadmissibility, deportation, or the denial of certain immigration benefits. The categorical approach is similarly applied to determine if the noncitizen's offense qualifies as a CIMT by comparing its elements to the generic federal definition.
As these two categories of crimes demonstrate, immigration statutes governing inadmissibility or deportability sometimes refer to categories of crimes. This makes it necessary to apply the categorical approach to determine whether a specific offense, of which a noncitizen has been convicted, falls within a particular category of crimes that carries immigration consequences. Due to the existence of different criminal justice systems among the 50 states, the interplay between state criminal laws and federal immigration laws does not only cause confusion but also adds complexity to the analytical process. State laws often differ from federal laws in defining criminal offenses, and each state may also define the same offense differently. These differences can complicate the classification process. If a state law defines a crime more broadly than the generic federal definition, the crime may not be used as a legal ground to deny immigration benefits or deport a noncitizen from the U.S.
The classification of crimes under the categorical approach has important implications for noncitizens. It can determine their admissibility, eligibility for relief, and the likelihood of deportation. For those noncitizens who are faced with criminal charges, they may potentially encounter double penalties based on the same criminal conduct: they may be punished under criminal laws and sentenced to jail and pay a fine, and after they have served their jail time and paid the fine, they may be penalized again under the immigration law when the convictions are used as deportability or inadmissibility grounds. Under certain circumstances, the immigration penalty, denial of immigration benefits or deportation, resulting in the breakup of families, loss of career, and uprooting of children, is much more severe than the criminal punishment such as a short period of jail time and a small amount of fine. Understanding the potential consequences and seeking legal counsel on immigration consequences is of great importance for noncitizens facing criminal charges or navigating the immigration system.
The categorical approach serves as the bedrock for classifying crimes in the U.S. immigration system. By focusing on the elements of a noncitizen's offense and comparing them to the generic federal definition, this approach aims to ensure that immigration consequences are based on the nature of the crime rather than the factual basis. Navigating the intricacies of crime classification under the categorical approach requires a thorough understanding of criminal statutes, court precedents, and inadmissibility and deportability grounds based on crimes under the INA.
WE ARE A EUGENE IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY OFFICE READY TO HELP YOU CONTACT US BY CALLING 541-484-1811 OR BY EMAILING BWANG@BWANGLAW.COM.
DISCLAIMER: This Article is for informational purposes only and may not be used in the place of legal advice.