Sessions v. Dimaya

Facts

James Dimaya, a native of the Phillippines, has resided lawfully in the United States since 1992. He was convicted of first-degree burglary twice under California law. Following the second conviction, the Government initiated a removal proceeding against him because the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) subjects a non-citizen convicted of an aggravated felony to deportation. The INA definition of aggravated felony included a residual clause that covered “any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.”

Both an Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals held that first-degree burglary is a crime of violence under this residual clause. While Dimaya’s case was in the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court of the United States held in Johnson v. United States that a residual clause in the definition of a violent crime in another criminal act was unconstitutionally vague. Considering that, the Ninth Circuit overturned the lower court’s judgment and held that the similarly worded clause in the INA is also unconstitutionally vague.