Home » aggravated felonies » Eleventh Circuit Rules that Delivering a Controlled Substance is An Aggravated Felony barring Naturalization
The American Dream does not stop…. neither do we. During this time, we are working hard from home. We are, however, open for business.
The Eleventh Circuit recently ruled that a Washington Conviction of Administering a Controlled Substance is an aggravated felony barring naturalization. The Decision is Bourtzakis v. US Atty. Gen.
Naturalization is the process under which a lawful permanent resident becomes a naturalized citizen of the United States. There are several requirements including:
A lawful permanent resident must submit an application on form N-400 and pay the fee. The person must also pass an English and civics exam.
Bourtzakis filed an application for naturalization. The Department of Homeland Security denied his application since he was convicted of delivering cocaine, a controlled substance, under Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.401(a). The government ruled that such conviction is an aggravated felony barring him from establishing good moral character. Bourtzakis filed a lawsuit in the Middle District of Florida, which ruled that his conviction constituted an aggravated felony. He appealed the decision to the Eleventh Circuit.
He advanced two arguments before the court, which I will discuss respectively.
To determine whether a statue statute had immigration consequences as a controlled substance conviction, the court must determine whether the state statute is broader than the federal equivalent. In other words, if the state statute prohibits conduct that is broader than the federal statute, then it is not a deportable offense.
Bourtzakis argued that the state’s statute in his case was overbroad since a person may be convicted under the Washington statute as an accomplice even if not charged in the information as such. The court rejected this argument reasoning that Washington’s statute is identical to the federal statute since the same conviction could take place under the federal statute.
Next, Bouzarkis attacked the statute arguing that the mens rea requirements are different under both statutes. He argued that since the state statute required only knowledge and the federal one required intent, then the statute was overbroad. The court rejected this argument reasoning that the requirements are identical since both statutes require that the person intends the result, the violation of the statute.
Next, Bourtzakis argued that the state statute was overbroad since it proscribed administering a controlled substance while the federal statute did not. The court rejected this argument since the federal statute also prohibited administering since it prohibited administering a controlled substance.
Our office regularly helps clients with the immigration consequences of criminal activity. We also help clients in their petitions before federal courts. Call us today if you would like to apply for naturalization while having a past criminal conviction.