Immigration · Primary-source case analysis

Pugin v. Garland: Obstruction of Justice Need Not Involve a Pending Proceeding

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published April 23, 2026

Pugin interprets the aggravated-felony category for offenses relating to obstruction of justice and rejects a categorical pending-proceeding requirement.

Two state convictions produced conflicting circuit outcomes

One case involved a Virginia accessory-after-the-fact conviction and the other a California conviction for dissuading a witness from reporting a crime. The Fourth and Ninth Circuits disagreed about whether a pending matter was essential.

Obstruction can begin before a proceeding

The Court looked to the ordinary meaning and legal usage of obstruction of justice when Congress enacted the provision. Preventing an investigation or proceeding from beginning can interfere with the process of justice even before a formal matter exists.

Relating to broadens the connection

The INA covers offenses relating to obstruction of justice, reinforcing that the generic category extends beyond offenses with an express pending-proceeding element. The Court did not decide every boundary of the generic offense.

Disposition

The Court affirmed in Pugin, reversed in Cordero-Garcia, and remanded. The lower courts still had to apply the categorical approach to the specific state statutes consistently with the announced rule.

Key takeaways

• Do not treat absence of a pending proceeding as dispositive.
• Compare the elements of the state offense with the generic federal category.
• Account for the INA’s words relating to.
• Analyze sentence length and other aggravated-felony requirements separately.