Drug Laws and Immigration
There is a lot of misconception about the nature of drug laws (Federal and State) and how a criminal conviction for a drug offense would affect someone’s immigration status. Recently, the United States Supreme Court took a step toward clarifying what types of drug offenses render a person deportable.
In Mellouli v. Lynch, 515 U.S. (2015), the Supreme Court held that a conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia under State law (Kansas in this case) does not necessarily render the person deportable. It is understood (wrongly) that all drug offenses render an alien (whether illegal or a legal permanent resident) deportable. The Court explained that only those drug offenses outlined by federal law (Section 802 of Title 21) make a person deportable.
Some background about this case is helpful to understanding the Supreme Court’s ruling. Mellouli was arrested for driving under the influence and during a search of him the police found four orange tablets in his sock. Mellouli admitted the tablets were Adderall and that he did not have a prescription for them. Adderall is a controlled substance under both federal law and Kansas law. Ultimately, Mellouli pleaded guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia, for the sock he used to conceal the Adderall. The amended criminal complaint did not name Adderall as the drug he concealed nor did the State try to prove Adderall was the drug Mellouli possessed.
At the time of the conviction, Mellouli was lawful permanent resident. He was ultimately deported based on the drug paraphernalia conviction. He appealed the deportation and the Supreme Court took his case.
The Supreme Court overturned his deportation stating that his drug paraphernalia conviction did not render him deportable under immigration law (specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i)). The Court explained that Mellouli’s conviction for possessing drug paraphernalia would not have qualified as a crime under federal law because federal law only criminalizes the sale or commerce of drug paraphernalia, not simple possession.
The Court also held that the words “relating to a controlled substance” in the text of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) do not automatically render a person deportable for any drug crime. Drug offenses trigger deportation only when they involve federally controlled substances. Thus, only convictions for those drugs outlined in § 802 render a person deportable.
The Court also went into a more detailed discussion regarding whether an immigration judge may consider not only person’s conviction but also the conduct underlying a conviction. While the nuts and bolts of this discussion is beyond the scope of this post, the basic take-away is this: typically, an immigration court is only to look at the conviction. The actual conduct that triggered the conviction is irrelevant.
This case does a fantastic job of illustrating the complexities of immigration law as a whole. As this case demonstrates, there are several small details that can make or break an immigration case.
