Under the INA, certain nonpermanent residents may seek to cancel an order of removal and adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence by applying to the United States Attorney General through the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), a subagency of the United States Department of Justice.

He relocated to Nebraska with his family, was gainfully employed and paid taxes, and with his wife raised three children, one a U.S. citizen and another a Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipient.

The United States Department of Homeland Security produced his criminal complaint but that document did not specify which of the four means he actually violated.

That was problematic because three of the means were disqualifying offenses as a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) that rendered him inadmissible or deportable while one (carrying a business without a license) did not.

Pereida argued that such ambiguity meant that his prior conviction could not be construed as a disqualifying offense to bar eligibility for relief.

The Eighth Circuit denied his petition holding that under the modified categorical approach they were unable to discern which means he was convicted.

The Eighth Circuit noted that the absence of the necessary substantive determination of the existence of a CIMT precluded any inquiry of the petty offense exception.

[5] Before the Court, Pereida reiterated his argument that any ambiguity about his prior conviction meant that the crime could not be a disqualifying offense under the categorical approach and therefore would not bar eligibility for relief.