Pereida v. Wilkinson: Subjecting Immigrants to an Uphill Climb in Obtaining Relief from Deportation

Luca V. Artista

In Pereida v. Wilkinson, the Supreme Court evaluated whether a noncitizen carries the burden to prove that they were not convicted of a disqualifying crime, such as a crime involving moral turpitude, under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) to be eligible for cancellation of removal. The Court held that in proceedings where a noncitizen seeks relief from removal, the immigrant carries the burden to produce evidence demonstrating that their crime did not involve moral turpitude. The Court interpreted the INA to indicate that Congress intended to shift the burden of proof to the immigrant in cancellation of removal proceedings. With this ruling, the Court limited the application of the categorical approach framework intended by Congress. Further, the Court’s holding is improper as it misinterprets earlier Supreme Court precedent regarding the categorical approach. Finally, the Court’s judgment will hamper the administrative and judicial efficiency of our nation’s already overburdened immigration system and presents troubling Sixth Amendment implications for noncitizens seeking relief.