Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1034_3dq4.pdf
Page Number: 25.0

8 

MELLOULI v. LYNCH 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

whenever  a  State  moves  first  in  subjecting  some  newly 
discovered drug to regulation, every alien convicted during 
the  lag  between  state  and  federal  regulation  would  be 
immunized  from  the  immigration  consequences  of  his
conduct.  Cf. Brief for Respondent 10 (explaining that two
of  the  nine nonfederally  controlled  substances  on  Kansas’ 
schedules at the time Mellouli was arrested became feder-
ally controlled within a year of his arrest).  And the Gov-
ernment  could  never,  under  §1227(a)(2)(B)(i),  remove  an
alien  convicted  of  violating  the  controlled-substances  law 
of  a  State  that  defines  “controlled  substances”  with  refer-
ence to a list containing even one substance that does not 
appear on the federal schedules.

Finding no support for its position in the text, the major-
ity relies on the historical background, ante, at 13–14, and 
especially  the  Board  of  Immigration  Appeals’  (BIA)  deci-
sion  in  Matter  of  Paulus,  11  I. & N.  Dec.  274  (1965)—a 
surprising  choice,  given  that  the  majority  concludes  its 
discussion of that history by acknowledging that the BIA’s 
atextual  approach  to  the  statute  makes  “scant  sense,” 
ante,  at  11.    To  the  extent  that  the  BIA’s  approach  to
§1227(a)(2)(B)(i)  and  its  predecessors  is  consistent  with 
the  majority’s,  it  suffers  from  the  same  flaw:  It  fails  to 
account  for  the  text  of  the  removal  provision  because  it 
looks at whether the conviction itself necessarily involved 
a  substance  regulated  under  federal  law,  not  at  whether 
the statute related to one.  See Paulus, 11 I. & N. Dec., at 
276  (“[O]nly  a  conviction  for  illicit  possession  of  or  traffic
in  a  substance  which  is  defined  as  a  narcotic  drug  under
federal  laws  can  be  the  basis  for  deportation”  (emphasis 
added));  Matter  of  Ferreira,  26  I. & N.  Dec.  415,  418–419 
to 
(BIA  2014) 

its  categorical  approach 

(modeling 

—————— 

It would then follow that any alien convicted of “a violation of” that law

is removable under §1227(a)(2)(B)(i), regardless of whether a qualifying

judicial record reveals the controlled substance at issue.