Under immigration law, “certain nonpermanent aliens seeking to cancel a lawful removal order must prove that they have not been convicted of a disqualifying crime,” Gorsuch wrote.
In a dissent for the three liberal justices, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that the court instead should have ruled for Pereida because he was convicted under a law that includes serious offenses, falling into the category of crimes of moral turpitude, and less serious ones.
“The relevant documents in this case do not show that the previous conviction at issue necessarily was for a crime involving moral turpitude,” Breyer wrote.
Immigrants with criminal convictions who are facing deportation can ask the attorney general to allow them to remain in the country, if the conviction wasn’t for a serious crime and they have lived here at least 10 years, among other criteria.
Based on Thursday’s ruling, Pereida can’t seek that relief.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not take part in the case because she had not yet joined the court when the case was argued in October.