Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1034_3dq4.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2014 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

MELLOULI v. LYNCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT 

No. 13–1034.  Argued January 14, 2015—Decided June 1, 2015 

Petitioner  Moones  Mellouli,  a  lawful  permanent  resident,  pleaded 
guilty to a misdemeanor offense under Kansas law, the possession of 
drug  paraphernalia  “to  . . .  store  [or]  conceal  . . .  a  controlled  sub-
stance.”    Kan.  Stat.  Ann.  §21–5709(b)(2).    The  sole  “paraphernalia”
Mellouli  was  charged  with  possessing  was  a  sock  in  which  he  had 
placed  four  unidentified  orange  tablets.    Citing  Mellouli’s  misde-
meanor  conviction,  an  Immigration  Judge  ordered  him  deported  un-
der  8  U. S. C.  §1227(a)(2)(B)(i),  which  authorizes  the  deportation
(removal) of an alien “convicted of a violation of . . . any law or regu-
lation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a 
controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of Title 21).”  Section 
802, in turn, limits the term “controlled substance” to a “drug or oth-
er  substance”  included  in  one  of  five  federal  schedules.    21  U. S. C. 
§802(6).  Kansas defines “controlled substance” as any drug included 
on  its  own  schedules,  without  reference  to  §802.    Kan.  Stat.  Ann. 
§21–5701(a).  At the time of Mellouli’s conviction, Kansas’ schedules 
included at least nine substances not on the federal lists.  The Board 
of  Immigration  Appeals  (BIA)  affirmed  Mellouli’s  deportation  order, 
and the Eighth Circuit denied his petition for review. 

Held: Mellouli’s  Kansas  conviction  for  concealing  unnamed  pills  in  his

sock did not trigger removal under §1227(a)(2)(B)(i).  Pp. 5–14. 

(a) The  categorical  approach  historically  taken  in  determining 
whether  a  state  conviction  renders  an  alien  removable  looks  to  the 
statutory definition of the offense of conviction, not to the particulars 
of the alien’s  conduct.  The state conviction triggers removal only if,
by definition, the underlying crime falls within a category of remova-
ble  offenses  defined  by  federal  law.    The  BIA  has  long  applied  the
categorical  approach  to  assess  whether  a  state  drug  conviction  trig-