Federal Appeals Court Says Vacated Marijuana Conviction Cannot Be Used for Immigration Removal
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that a vacated marijuana possession conviction cannot be used to classify someone as “convicted of” a controlled-substance offense for immigration purposes, overturning a longstanding Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) policy.
- The ruling centered on Lizbeyde Yanez Piedra, whose 2006 marijuana conviction was vacated and the charge dismissed, but the BIA still used it against her in removal proceedings; the court rejected the BIA’s reason-for-vacatur framework as conflicting with statutory language.
- The court emphasized that the term “convicted of” implies current status, not a past or vacated conviction, and noted Congress explicitly includes past convictions elsewhere in immigration law when intended, which was not the case here.
- The decision was shaped by the 2024 Supreme Court ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which ended judicial deference to agency interpretations under the Chevron doctrine, requiring courts to independently interpret statutes rather than deferring to agencies.
A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that a vacated marijuana possession conviction can no longer be used to classify someone as “convicted of” a controlled-substance offense for immigration purposes, rejecting a longstanding Board of Immigration Appeals policy.
The August 24 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit came in the case of Lizbeyde Yanez Piedra, a native and citizen of Mexico whose removal proceedings partly relied on a marijuana conviction from North Carolina.
Piedra pleaded guilty to marijuana possession in 2006. Years later, while challenging her removal order, she successfully asked a North Carolina court to vacate the conviction, and the state subsequently dismissed the underlying charge. Despite that action, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) continued treating the marijuana conviction as valid for immigration purposes.
The BIA relied on a framework it had used for years under which a vacated conviction could still count if it was erased for reasons other than a substantive or procedural defect in the original criminal case.
The Fourth Circuit rejected that interpretation.
“The Board’s reason-for-vacatur framework cannot govern because it conflicts with the statute’s best reading,” the court said.
At issue was federal law making inadmissible certain individuals “convicted of” controlled-substance violations.
The court found that once Piedra’s marijuana conviction was vacated, she was no longer properly considered someone “convicted of” that offense under the language of the statute.
The panel pointed to the way similar terms are ordinarily used. Someone described as “married,” “licensed” or “employed,” the court said, is generally understood to currently hold that status rather than merely having held it sometime in the past.
Congress has also shown elsewhere in immigration law that it knows how to expressly include past convictions when it wants to do so. One provision, for example, refers to a person who “at any time” has been convicted of an aggravated felony. The controlled-substance provision at issue in Piedra’s case contains no such language.
The court also cited the legal principle that a vacated court order generally loses its future legal effect, concluding that immigration officials therefore cannot continue relying on a conviction that no longer legally exists.
The ruling was influenced by a major shift in how courts review federal agency interpretations.
In 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the long-standing Chevron doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Rather than deferring to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute, courts must now independently determine what they believe is the best reading of the law.
Applying that standard, the Fourth Circuit concluded the BIA’s approach could not override the statutory language.
Piedra came to the United States as a child and later became a lawful permanent resident. Removal proceedings followed after she returned from a 2013 trip to Mexico. She had also previously been convicted of two counts of common-law forgery, and those convictions were separately considered during her immigration case.
The appeals court granted her petition in part based on the marijuana issue. It rejected a separate argument challenging federal rules governing the timing of voluntary departure.
The case is Piedra v. Blanche, No. 25-1258.