Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvare, 549 U.S. 183 (2007)

In Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, the underlying dispute arose from the immigration status of Luis Alexander Duenas-Alvarez, who had been convicted of aiding and abetting a theft offense under California law. The case centered on whether this conviction constituted a "theft offense" under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which mandates the removal of aliens convicted of such offenses if the term of imprisonment is at least one year. The Attorney General, Alberto R. Gonzales, contended that aiding and abetting a theft should be classified as a theft offense, while Duenas-Alvarez argued that it should not. The procedural history of the case began when the Board of Immigration Appeals ordered Duenas-Alvarez's removal based on his conviction. Duenas-Alvarez appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in his favor, determining that aiding and abetting a theft offense did not fall under the definition of a "theft offense" as per the INA. The case was subsequently brought before the Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari to resolve this disagreement. The relevant background context includes the statutory framework of the INA, which lists specific offenses that can lead to the removal of aliens from the United States. The Supreme Court's decision relied on the interpretation of terms within the INA, particularly in relation to prior case law, including Taylor v. United States, which established a categorical approach for determining whether a state conviction aligns with federal definitions of offenses. The Court's ruling ultimately clarified that Congress intended for the term "theft offense" to encompass aiding and abetting, thereby affirming the removal order against Duenas-Alvarez.

Whether the term "theft offense" in the Immigration and Nationality Act includes the crime of "aiding and abetting" a theft offense.

The judgment is reversed.