Source: cases/18usc922/f3d-592-681-hernandez-v-holder.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_592/0681_01/index.html
Because § 922(g)(l)’s interstate commerce element is simply an element that ensures federal jurisdiction, finding that such an element is necessary for a state offense to be one that is “described in” § 922(g)(1) would undermine Congress’s evident intent that jurisdiction be disregarded in applying this definition of “aggravated felony.”
We hold that state felon-in-possession offenses, such as TPC § 46.04(a), need not have an interstate commerce element in order for the offense to be an offense “described in” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) has three relevant elements: (1) prior felony conviction; (2) possession of a firearm; and (3) interstate commerce requirement.
Nieto concedes in his brief that TPC § 46.04(a)’s two elements correspond with 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(l)'s first two elements.
Nieto concedes in his brief that TPC § 46.04(a)’s two elements correspond with 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(l)'s first two elements.
casedsl 1 case /f3d/592/0681-01 name Hernandez v. Holder cite 592 F.3d 681 (2009) court United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit date 2009-12-30 url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_592/0681_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f3d_592.jsonl sha1=87533d5228c2a5df4e90b3918aa2aff86d061f01 chars=14085 law 18usc922 (g)(1) role comparator posture immigration (civil) petition for review; IJ and BIA held a Texas felon-in-possession conviction (Tex. Penal Code 46.04(a)) to be an INA aggravated felony as an offense "described in" 922(g)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii)), making the alien ineligible for cancellation of removal; petition denied; 922(g)(1) is the federal yardstick, not the statute of conviction result claimant-won element commerce-possession : not-reached count Texas offense of conviction, Tex. Penal Code 46.04(a) theory categorical comparison of the state offense to 922(g)(1): the jurisdictional element is disregarded variant categorical-match/state-offense-lacks-jurisdictional-element fact @2193..2422 [cuts-against absent] | Specifically, he argued that his conviction under TPC § 46.04(a) was not an aggravated felony as “described in” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) because TPC § 46.04(a) did not contain an interstate commerce element, whereas § 922(g)(1) did. rule @6755..7094 | Because § 922(g)(l)’s interstate commerce element is simply an element that ensures federal jurisdiction, finding that such an element is necessary for a state offense to be one that is “described in” § 922(g)(1) would undermine Congress’s evident intent that jurisdiction be disregarded in applying this definition of “aggravated felony.” held @3279..3476 | We hold that state felon-in-possession offenses, such as TPC § 46.04(a), need not have an interstate commerce element in order for the offense to be an offense “described in” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). gloss REAL RULING: a construction of the INA phrase "described in" (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii)) - the 922(g)(1) commerce element is merely jurisdictional and is disregarded in the comparison, so a state offense need not have it. That the Texas offense has no commerce element was undisputed (the fact line), but the court does not hold the commerce element unsatisfied or failed; it holds the mismatch irrelevant, and the Government prevailed. Nothing is decided about any firearm's movement in commerce; hence not-reached. element status.g1 : satisfied [conceded] count Texas offense of conviction, Tex. Penal Code 46.04(a) theory categorical comparison of the state offense to 922(g)(1): substantive elements variant categorical-match/state-felon-in-possession-offense fact @13683..13812 [supports] | TPC § 46.04(a) has two elements that are relevant to this decision: (1) prior felony conviction and (2) possession, of a firearm. rule @13813..13962 | 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) has three relevant elements: (1) prior felony conviction; (2) possession of a firearm; and (3) interstate commerce requirement. held @13963..14085 | Nieto concedes in his brief that TPC § 46.04(a)’s two elements correspond with 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(l)'s first two elements. gloss Element-to-element correspondence conceded by the petitioner; not a finding about his own prior felony (a 1997 Texas marijuana conviction, mentioned only as the ground of removability). element possession : satisfied [conceded] count Texas offense of conviction, Tex. Penal Code 46.04(a) theory categorical comparison of the state offense to 922(g)(1): substantive elements variant categorical-match/state-felon-in-possession-offense fact @13683..13812 [supports] | TPC § 46.04(a) has two elements that are relevant to this decision: (1) prior felony conviction and (2) possession, of a firearm. held @13963..14085 | Nieto concedes in his brief that TPC § 46.04(a)’s two elements correspond with 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(l)'s first two elements. gloss Same concession; the opinion says nothing about how or what the petitioner possessed. misfit Known (comparator; law-to-law subsumption): the case compares a STATE STATUTE to 922(g)(1) under the categorical approach; the "facts" quoted are propositions about the Texas statute's elements, and polarity means "toward a categorical match". `result claimant-won` = the Government (BIA) prevailed; the role cannot name the compared laws (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii); Tex. Penal Code 46.04(a)). misfit New for this law: the holding is a statement about the KIND of an element - commerce-possession is "jurisdictional" and therefore drops out of a "described in" comparison, while status and possession are "substantive". The law file's not-required list already separates the commerce element for mens rea (Rehaif); an element attribute (jurisdictional vs substantive) would let both this ruling and that one attach to it. With no such attribute the block is `not-reached` (comparator) and the jurisdictional-element ruling lives in its rule/held quotes and gloss. misfit `[conceded]` is used for a concession about statutory correspondence, which is close to the "conceding the legal standard" case the spec routes to rule-announced; kept as conceded because the comparison itself (this state offense vs 922(g)(1)) is the case-specific matter in dispute, and role comparator already keeps the blocks out of the instance count. misfit Good-law flag (known): the same question was later decided by the Supreme Court; nothing about that is in the pinned text.