Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1034_3dq4.pdf
Page Number: 10

Cite as:  575 U. S. ____ (2015) 

7 

Opinion of the Court 

statute  concluded  that  Congress,  by  tying  immigration
penalties  to  convictions,  intended  to  “limi[t]  the  immigra-
tion adjudicator’s assessment of a past criminal conviction
to a legal analysis of the statutory offense,” and to disallow 
“[examination]  of  the  facts  underlying  the  crime.”  Das, 
supra, at 1688, 1690. 

Rooted  in  Congress’  specification  of  conviction,  not 
conduct,  as  the  trigger  for  immigration  consequences,  the
categorical  approach  is  suited  to  the  realities  of  the  sys-
tem.  Asking immigration judges in each case to determine 
the  circumstances  underlying  a  state  conviction  would 
burden  a  system  in  which  “large  numbers  of  cases  [are 
resolved  by]  immigration  judges  and  front-line  immigra-
tion  officers,  often  years  after  the  convictions.”    Koh,  The 
Whole  Better  than  the  Sum:  A  Case  for  the  Categorical 
Approach  to  Determining  the  Immigration  Consequences
of  Crime,  26  Geo.  Immigration  L.  J.  257,  295  (2012).    By
focusing  on  the  legal  question  of  what  a  conviction  neces-
sarily  established,  the  categorical  approach  ordinarily
works to promote efficiency, fairness, and predictability in
the  administration  of  immigration  law.  See  id.,  at  295– 
310;  Das,  supra,  at  1725–1742. 
In  particular,  the  ap-
proach  enables  aliens  “to  anticipate  the  immigration
consequences  of  guilty  pleas  in  criminal  court,”  and  to
enter  “ ‘safe  harbor’  guilty  pleas  [that]  do  not  expose  the
[alien  defendant]  to  the  risk  of  immigration  sanctions.” 
Koh, supra, at 307.  See Das, supra, at 1737–1738.5 

The  categorical  approach  has  been  applied  routinely  to 
assess  whether  a  state  drug  conviction  triggers  removal 
under the immigration statute.  As originally enacted, the
removal  statute  specifically  listed  covered  offenses  and 

—————— 

5 Mellouli’s plea may be an example.  In admitting only paraphernalia
possession, Mellouli avoided any identification, in the record of convic-
tion, of the federally controlled substance (Adderall) his sock contained.
See supra, at 3–4.