Pugin v. Garland
Issues
To be considered as “an offense relating to obstruction of justice” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(S), must a predicate offense require a nexus with a pending or ongoing investigation or judicial proceeding?
This case asks the Supreme Court to clarify whether nexus to a pending or ongoing investigation or legal proceeding is necessary for an offense to be considered as “an offense relating to obstruction of justice” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(S). Pugin argues that the phrase has historical meaning and that interpretation in favor of the noncitizen and the rule of lenity should apply. Attorney General Merrick Garland counters that the phrase has an ordinary meaning, and the Court should defer to the Board Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) interpretation following Chevron deference. This case has implications on how the BIA should apply the rule of lenity and how much deference the BIA should receive.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether an offense can be considered as "an offense relating to obstruction of justice" under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(S) only when it has nexus to a pending or ongoing investigation or legal proceeding.
Jean Francois Pugin is a Mauritius citizen and lawful permanent resident of the United States. Pugin v. Garland at 2. Pugin pled guilty to being an accessory after the fact to a felony under Virginia law in 2014.
Additional Resources
- Kimberly Robinson, Justices Weigh Immigration Law With ‘Harsh Consequences’, Bloomberg Law (Jan. 13, 2023).
- Dan Schweitzer, Supreme Court Report: Pugin v. Garland, 22-23; Garland v. Cordero-Garcia, 22-331, National Association of Attorneys General (Jan. 30, 2023).
- Daniel Wiessner, U.S. Supreme Court Will Take Up Key Issue For Some Deportation Cases, Reuters (Jan. 13, 2023).