United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2009-12-30
18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed
Case and law context
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; claim: (g)(1)
Uncertainty
None recorded
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)).
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.
`[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.
Good-law flag (known): the same question was later decided by the Supreme Court; nothing about that is in the pinned text.
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 12
| Case | One applicable prohibited category | Section 925(a)(1) government-use firearm or ammunition exception | Actual or constructive possession | Firearm or ammunition under section 921 | Possession in or affecting commerce | Knowledge of possessing the firearm or ammunition |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hernandez v. Holder — 592 F.3d 681 (2009) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2009 (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | ✓ satisfied · concededNot counted: comparator/merits | · not addressed | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: comparator/merits | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 12
| Case | Knowledge of the relevant disqualifying status | Second Amendment limit on the unlawful-user theory applied to Hemani | Ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce | Knowing shipping, transportation or receipt | Receipt of the prohibited object | Received object previously shipped or transported across borders |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hernandez v. Holder — 592 F.3d 681 (2009) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2009 (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hernandez v. Holder — 592 F.3d 681 (2009) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2009 — not reached (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Possession in or affecting commerce | not_reached Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits claim: (g)(1); 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; subject: 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 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. | categorical-match/state-offense-lacks-jurisdictional-element | 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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_592.jsonl#/f3d/592/0681-01; Unicode character offsets [2193:2422] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43af4e91a7ab3d7b0cad29056b92bb9e454fbd4cf5c3cd0f3ae4ce572c98f62f.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.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_592.jsonl#/f3d/592/0681-01; Unicode character offsets [6755:7094] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43af4e91a7ab3d7b0cad29056b92bb9e454fbd4cf5c3cd0f3ae4ce572c98f62f.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).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_592.jsonl#/f3d/592/0681-01; Unicode character offsets [3279:3476] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43af4e91a7ab3d7b0cad29056b92bb9e454fbd4cf5c3cd0f3ae4ce572c98f62f. |
| Hernandez v. Holder — 592 F.3d 681 (2009) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2009 — satisfied · conceded (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Actual or constructive possession | satisfied Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits basis: conceded; claim: (g)(1); count: Texas offense of conviction, Tex. Penal Code 46.04(a); theory: categorical comparison of the state offense to 922(g)(1): substantive elements; subject: count=Texas offense of conviction, Tex. Penal Code 46.04(a); theory=categorical comparison of the state offense to 922(g)(1): substantive elements Same concession; the opinion says nothing about how or what the petitioner possessed. | categorical-match/state-felon-in-possession-offense | TPC § 46.04(a) has two elements that are relevant to this decision: (1) prior felony conviction and (2) possession, of a firearm.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_592.jsonl#/f3d/592/0681-01; Unicode character offsets [13683:13812] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43af4e91a7ab3d7b0cad29056b92bb9e454fbd4cf5c3cd0f3ae4ce572c98f62f.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_592.jsonl#/f3d/592/0681-01; Unicode character offsets [13963:14085] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43af4e91a7ab3d7b0cad29056b92bb9e454fbd4cf5c3cd0f3ae4ce572c98f62f. |
| Hernandez v. Holder — 592 F.3d 681 (2009) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2009 — satisfied · conceded (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Conviction punishable by more than one year | satisfied Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits basis: conceded; claim: (g)(1); count: Texas offense of conviction, Tex. Penal Code 46.04(a); theory: categorical comparison of the state offense to 922(g)(1): substantive elements; subject: count=Texas offense of conviction, Tex. Penal Code 46.04(a); theory=categorical comparison of the state offense to 922(g)(1): substantive elements 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). | categorical-match/state-felon-in-possession-offense | TPC § 46.04(a) has two elements that are relevant to this decision: (1) prior felony conviction and (2) possession, of a firearm.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_592.jsonl#/f3d/592/0681-01; Unicode character offsets [13683:13812] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43af4e91a7ab3d7b0cad29056b92bb9e454fbd4cf5c3cd0f3ae4ce572c98f62f.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_592.jsonl#/f3d/592/0681-01; Unicode character offsets [13813:13962] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43af4e91a7ab3d7b0cad29056b92bb9e454fbd4cf5c3cd0f3ae4ce572c98f62f.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_592.jsonl#/f3d/592/0681-01; Unicode character offsets [13963:14085] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43af4e91a7ab3d7b0cad29056b92bb9e454fbd4cf5c3cd0f3ae4ce572c98f62f. |