Pugin v. Garland

In Pugin v. Garland, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed two consolidated immigration cases on June 22, 2023. Jean Francois Pugin, a Haitian lawful permanent resident, was convicted in Virginia of being an accessory after the fact to a felony. Fernando Cordero-Garcia, a Mexican lawful permanent resident, was convicted in California of dissuading a witness from reporting a crime. Immigration authorities charged both as removable for having committed an aggravated felony, specifically an offense relating to obstruction of justice. The Fourth Circuit upheld removal in Pugin's case, while the Ninth Circuit ruled against removal in Cordero-Garcia's case because no judicial proceeding was pending. The Supreme Court resolved the circuit split.

The Supreme Court held 6–3 that no pending or reasonably foreseeable proceeding requirement exists. It affirmed the Fourth Circuit in Pugin and reversed the Ninth Circuit in Cordero-Garcia, concluding both convictions qualified as aggravated felonies related to obstruction of justice.

Whether a state criminal offense qualifies as an "offense relating to obstruction of justice" under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(S), making a noncitizen removable as an aggravated felon, only if the offense requires that a judicial or official proceeding be pending or reasonably foreseeable.

The ruling broadened the category of removable aggravated felonies, allowing state convictions such as accessory after the fact or witness dissuasion to trigger deportation even without an active investigation or case. It resolved a circuit split, affected immigration defense strategies, and raised concerns among immigrant rights advocates about expanded removal consequences for relatively minor state offenses.