Justice SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

*187The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 66 Stat. 163, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., provides that a noncitizen who has been convicted of an " aggravated felony" may be deported from this country. The INA also prohibits the Attorney General from granting discretionary relief from removal to an aggravated felon, no matter how compelling his case. Among the crimes that are classified as aggravated felonies, and thus lead to these harsh consequences, are illicit drug trafficking offenses. We must decide whether this category includes a state criminal statute that extends to the social sharing of a small amount of marijuana. We hold it does not.

I

A

The INA allows the Government to deport various classes of noncitizens, such as those who overstay their visas, and those who are convicted of certain crimes while in the United States, including drug offenses. § 1227. Ordinarily, when a noncitizen is found to be deportable on one of these grounds, he may ask the Attorney General for certain forms of discretionary relief from removal, like asylum (if he has a well-founded fear of persecution in his home country) and cancellation of removal (if, among other things, he has been lawfully present in the United States for a number of years). §§ 1158, 1229b. But if a noncitizen has been convicted of one of a narrower set of crimes classified as "aggravated felonies," then he is not only deportable, § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), but also ineligible for these discretionary forms of relief. See §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), (B)(i); §§ 1229b(a)(3), (b)(1)(C).1

*1683*188The INA defines "aggravated felony" to include a host of offenses. § 1101(a)(43). Among them is "illicit trafficking in a controlled substance." § 1101(a)(43)(B). This general term is not defined, but the INA states that it "includ[es] a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 924(c) of title 18 )." Ibid. In turn, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2) defines "drug trafficking crime" to mean "any felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act," or two other statutes not relevant here. The chain of definitions ends with § 3559(a)(5), which provides that a "felony" is an offense for which the "maximum term of imprisonment authorized" is "more than one year." The upshot is that a noncitizen's conviction of an offense that the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) makes punishable by more than one year's imprisonment will be counted as an "aggravated felony" for immigration purposes. A conviction under either state or federal law may qualify, but a "state offense constitutes a 'felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act' only if it proscribes conduct punishable as a felony under that federal law." Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47, 60, 127 S.Ct. 625, 166 L.Ed.2d 462 (2006).

B

Petitioner Adrian Moncrieffe is a Jamaican citizen who came to the United States legally in 1984, when he was three. During a 2007 traffic stop, police found 1.3 grams of marijuana in his car. This is the equivalent of about two or three marijuana cigarettes. Moncrieffe pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, a violation of Ga.Code Ann. § 16-13-30(j)(1) (2007). Under a Georgia statute providing more lenient treatment to first-time offenders, *189§ 42-8-60(a) (1997), the trial court withheld entering a judgment of conviction or imposing any term of imprisonment, and instead required that Moncrieffe complete five years of probation, after which his charge will be expunged altogether.2 App. to Brief for Petitioner 11-15.

Alleging that this Georgia conviction constituted an aggravated felony, the Federal Government sought to deport Moncrieffe. The Government reasoned that possession of marijuana with intent to distribute is an offense under the CSA, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), punishable by up to five years' imprisonment, § 841(b)(1)(D), and thus an aggravated felony. An Immigration Judge agreed and ordered Moncrieffe removed. App. to Pet. for Cert. 14a-18a. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed that conclusion on appeal. Id., at 10a-13a.

The Court of Appeals denied Moncrieffe's petition for review. The court rejected Moncrieffe's reliance upon § 841(b)(4), a provision that, in effect, makes marijuana distribution punishable only as a misdemeanor if the offense involves a small amount of marijuana for no remuneration. It held that in a federal criminal prosecution, "the default sentencing range for a marijuana distribution offense is the CSA's felony provision, § 841(b)(1)(D), rather than the misdemeanor provision."

*1684662 F.3d 387, 392 (C.A.5 2011). Because Moncrieffe's Georgia offense penalized possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, the court concluded that it was "equivalent to a federal felony." Ibid.

We granted certiorari, 566 U.S. ----, 132 S.Ct. 1857, 182 L.Ed.2d 642 (2012), to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals with respect to whether a conviction under a statute that criminalizes conduct described by both § 841's felony provision and its misdemeanor provision, such as a statute that punishes all *190marijuana distribution without regard to the amount or remuneration, is a conviction for an offense that "proscribes conduct punishable as a felony under" the CSA.3 Lopez, 549 U.S., at 60, 127 S.Ct. 625. We now reverse.

II

A

When the Government alleges that a state conviction qualifies as an "aggravated felony" under the INA, we generally employ a "categorical approach" to determine whether the state offense is comparable to an offense listed in the INA. See, e.g., Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29, 33-38, 129 S.Ct. 2294, 174 L.Ed.2d 22 (2009) ; Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 185-187, 127 S.Ct. 815, 166 L.Ed.2d 683 (2007). Under this approach we look "not to the facts of the particular prior case," but instead to whether "the state statute defining the crime of conviction" categorically fits within the "generic" federal definition of a corresponding aggravated felony. Id., at 186, 127 S.Ct. 815 (citing Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 599-600, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990) ). By "generic," we mean the offenses must be viewed in the abstract, to see whether the state statute shares the nature of the federal offense that serves as a point of comparison. Accordingly, a state offense is a categorical match with a generic federal offense only if a conviction of the state offense " 'necessarily' involved ... facts equating to [the] generic [federal offense]." Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 24, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005) (plurality opinion). Whether the noncitizen's actual conduct involved such facts "is quite irrelevant." United States ex rel. Guarino v. Uhl, 107 F.2d 399, 400 (C.A.2 1939) (L. Hand, J.).

Because we examine what the state conviction necessarily involved, not the facts underlying the case, we must presume *191that the conviction " rested upon [nothing] more than the least of th[e] acts" criminalized, and then determine whether even those acts are encompassed by the generic federal offense. Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133, 137, 130 S.Ct. 1265, 176 L.Ed.2d 1 (2010) ; see Guarino, 107 F.2d, at 400. But this rule is not without qualification. First, our cases have addressed state statutes that contain several different crimes, each described separately, and we have held that a court may determine which particular offense the noncitizen was convicted of by examining the charging document and jury instructions, or in the case of a guilty plea, the plea agreement, plea colloquy, or " 'some comparable judicial record' of the factual basis for the plea." Nijhawan, 557 U.S., at 35, 129 S.Ct. 2294 (quoting Shepard, 544 U.S., at 26, 125 S.Ct. 1254). Second, our focus on the minimum conduct criminalized by the state statute is not an *1685invitation to apply "legal imagination" to the state offense; there must be "a realistic probability, not a theoretical possibility, that the State would apply its statute to conduct that falls outside the generic definition of a crime." Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S., at 193, 127 S.Ct. 815.

This categorical approach has a long pedigree in our Nation's immigration law. See Das, The Immigration Penalties of Criminal Convictions: Resurrecting Categorical Analysis in Immigration Law, 86 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 1669, 1688-1702, 1749-1752 (2011) (tracing judicial decisions back to 1913). The reason is that the INA asks what offense the noncitizen was "convicted" of, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), not what acts he committed. "[C]onviction" is "the relevant statutory hook."4 Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. ----, ----, 130 S.Ct. 2577, 2588, 177 L.Ed.2d 68 (2010); see United States ex rel. Mylius v. Uhl, 210 F. 860, 862 (C.A.2 1914).

B

*192The aggravated felony at issue here, "illicit trafficking in a controlled substance," is a "generic crim[e]." Nijhawan, 557 U.S., at 37, 129 S.Ct. 2294. So the categorical approach applies. Ibid. As we have explained, supra, at 1682 - 1683, this aggravated felony encompasses all state offenses that "proscrib[e] conduct punishable as a felony under [the CSA]." Lopez, 549 U.S., at 60, 127 S.Ct. 625. In other words, to satisfy the categorical approach, a state drug offense must meet two conditions: It must "necessarily" proscribe conduct that is an offense under the CSA, and the CSA must "necessarily" prescribe felony punishment for that conduct.

Moncrieffe was convicted under a Georgia statute that makes it a crime to "possess, have under [one's] control, manufacture, deliver, distribute, dispense, administer, purchase, sell, or possess with intent to distribute marijuana." Ga.Code Ann. § 16-13-30(j)(1). We know from his plea agreement that Moncrieffe was convicted of the last of these offenses. App. to Brief for Petitioner 11; Shepard, 544 U.S., at 26, 125 S.Ct. 1254. We therefore must determine whether possession of marijuana with intent to distribute is "necessarily" conduct punishable as a felony under the CSA.

We begin with the relevant conduct criminalized by the CSA. There is no question that it is a federal crime to "possess with intent to ... distribute ... a controlled substance," 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), one of which is marijuana, § 812(c).5 So far, the state and federal provisions correspond. But this is not enough, because the generically defined federal crime is "any felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act," 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2), not just any "offense under the *193CSA." Thus we must look to what punishment the CSA imposes for this offense.

Section 841 is divided into two subsections that are relevant here: (a), titled "Unlawful acts," which includes the offense just described, and (b), titled "Penalties." Subsection (b) tells us how "any person who violates subsection (a)" shall be punished, *1686depending on the circumstances of his crime (e.g., the type and quantity of controlled substance involved, whether it is a repeat offense).6 Subsection (b)(1)(D) provides that if a person commits a violation of subsection (a) involving "less than 50 kilograms of marihuana," then "such person shall, except as provided in paragraphs (4) and (5) of this subsection, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 5 years," i.e., as a felon. But one of the exceptions is important here. Paragraph (4) provides, "Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(D) of this subsection, any person who violates subsection (a) of this section by distributing a small amount of marihuana for no remuneration shall be treated as" a simple drug possessor, 21 U.S.C. § 844, which *194for our purposes means as a misdemeanant.7 These dovetailing provisions create two mutually exclusive categories of punishment for CSA marijuana distribution offenses: one a felony, and one not. The only way to know whether a marijuana distribution offense is "punishable as a felony" under the CSA, Lopez, 549 U.S., at 60, 127 S.Ct. 625, is to know whether the conditions described in paragraph (4) are present or absent.

A conviction under the same Georgia statute for "sell[ing]" marijuana, for example, would seem to establish remuneration. The presence of remuneration would mean that paragraph (4) is not implicated, and thus that the conviction is necessarily for conduct punishable as a felony under the CSA (under paragraph (1)(D)). In contrast, the fact of a conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, standing alone, does not reveal whether either remuneration or more than a small amount of marijuana was involved. It is possible neither was; we know that Georgia prosecutes this offense when a defendant possesses only a small amount of marijuana, see, e.g., Taylor v. State, 260 Ga.App. 890, 581 S.E.2d 386, 388 (2003) (6.6 grams), and that "distribution" does not require remuneration, see, e.g., Hadden v. State, 181 Ga.App. 628, 628-629, 353 S.E.2d 532, 533-534 (1987). So Moncrieffe's *1687conviction could correspond to either the CSA felony or the CSA misdemeanor. Ambiguity on this point means that the conviction did not "necessarily" involve *195facts that correspond to an offense punishable as a felony under the CSA. Under the categorical approach, then, Moncrieffe was not convicted of an aggravated felony.

III

A

The Government advances a different approach that leads to a different result. In its view, § 841(b)(4)'s misdemeanor provision is irrelevant to the categorical analysis because paragraph (4) is merely a "mitigating exception," to the CSA offense, not one of the "elements" of the offense. Brief for Respondent 12. And because possession with intent to distribute marijuana is "presumptive[ly]" a felony under the CSA, the Government asserts, any state offense with the same elements is presumptively an aggravated felony. Id., at 37. These two contentions are related, and we reject both of them.

First, the Government reads our cases to hold that the categorical approach is concerned only with the "elements" of an offense, so § 841(b)(4)"is not relevant" to the categorical analysis. Id., at 20. It is enough to satisfy the categorical inquiry, the Government suggests, that the "elements" of Moncrieffe's Georgia offense are the same as those of the CSA offense: (1) possession (2) of marijuana (a controlled substance), (3) with intent to distribute it. But that understanding is inconsistent with Carachuri-Rosendo, our only decision to address both "elements" and "sentencing factors." There we recognized that when Congress has chosen to define the generic federal offense by reference to punishment, it may be necessary to take account of federal sentencing factors too. See 560 U.S., at ----, 130 S.Ct., at 2581-2582. In that case the relevant CSA offense was simple possession, which "becomes a 'felony punishable under the [CSA]' only because the sentencing factor of recidivism authorizes additional punishment beyond one year, the criterion for a felony." Id., at ----, 130 S.Ct., at 2590 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment). We therefore called *196the generic federal offense "recidivist simple possession," even though such a crime is not actually "a separate offense" under the CSA, but rather an " 'amalgam' " of offense elements and sentencing factors. Id., at ----, and n. 3, ----, 130 S.Ct., at 2581-2582, and n. 3, 2583-2584 (majority opinion).

In other words, not only must the state offense of conviction meet the "elements" of the generic federal offense defined by the INA, but the CSA must punish that offense as a felony. Here, the facts giving rise to the CSA offense establish a crime that may be either a felony or a misdemeanor, depending upon the presence or absence of certain factors that are not themselves elements of the crime. And so to qualify as an aggravated felony, a conviction for the predicate offense must necessarily establish those factors as well.

The Government attempts to distinguish Carachuri-Rosendo on the ground that the sentencing factor there was a "narrow" aggravating exception that turned a misdemeanor into a felony, whereas here § 841(b)(4) is a narrow mitigation exception that turns a felony into a misdemeanor. Brief for Respondent 40-43. This argument hinges upon the Government's second assertion: that any marijuana distribution conviction is "presumptively" a felony. But that is simply incorrect, and the Government's argument collapses as a result. Marijuana distribution is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor until we know whether the conditions in paragraph (4)

*1688attach: Section 841(b)(1)(D) makes the crime punishable by five years' imprisonment "except as provided" in paragraph (4), and § 841(b)(4) makes it punishable as a misdemeanor "[n]otwithstanding paragraph (1)(D)" when only "a small amount of marihuana for no remuneration" is involved. (Emphasis added.) The CSA's text makes neither provision the default. Rather, each is drafted to be exclusive of the other.

Like the BIA and the Fifth Circuit, the Government believes the felony provision to be the default because, in practice, that is how federal criminal prosecutions for marijuana *197distribution operate. See 662 F.3d, at 391-392; Matter of Aruna, 24 I. & N. Dec. 452, 456-457 (2008) ; Brief for Respondent 18-23. It is true that every Court of Appeals to have considered the question has held that a defendant is eligible for a 5-year sentence under § 841(b)(1)(D) if the Government proves he possessed marijuana with the intent to distribute it, and that the Government need not negate the § 841(b)(4) factors in each case. See, e.g., United States v. Outen, 286 F.3d 622, 636-639 (C.A.2 2002) (describing § 841(b)(4) as a "mitigating exception"); United States v. Hamlin, 319 F.3d 666, 670-671 (C.A.4 2003) (collecting cases). Instead, the burden is on the defendant to show that he qualifies for the lesser sentence under § 841(b) (4). Cf. id., at 671.

We cannot discount § 841's text, however, which creates no default punishment, in favor of the procedural overlay or burdens of proof that would apply in a hypothetical federal criminal prosecution. In Carachuri-Rosendo, we rejected the Fifth Circuit's " 'hypothetical approach,' " which examined whether conduct " 'could have been punished as a felony' 'had [it] been prosecuted in federal court.' " 560 U.S., at ----, ----, 130 S.Ct., at 2584, 2585-2586.8 The outcome in a hypothetical prosecution is not the relevant inquiry. Rather, our "more focused, categorical inquiry" is whether the record of conviction of the predicate *198offense necessarily establishes conduct that the CSA, on its own terms, makes punishable as a felony. Id., at ----, 130 S.Ct., at 2588-2589.

The analogy to a federal prosecution is misplaced for another reason. The Court of Appeals cases the Government cites distinguished between elements and sentencing factors to determine which facts must be proved to a jury, in light of the Sixth Amendment concerns addressed in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). The courts considered which "provision ... states a complete crime upon the fewest facts, " Outen, 286 F.3d, at 638, which was significant after Apprendi to identify what a jury had to find before a defendant could receive § 841(b)(1)(D)'s maximum 5-year sentence. But those concerns do not apply in this context. Here we consider a "generic"

*1689federal offense in the abstract, not an actual federal offense being prosecuted before a jury. Our concern is only which facts the CSA relies upon to distinguish between felonies and misdemeanors, not which facts must be found by a jury as opposed to a judge, nor who has the burden of proving which facts in a federal prosecution.9

Because of these differences, we made clear in Carachuri-Rosendo that, for purposes of the INA, a generic federal offense may be defined by reference to both " 'elements' in the traditional sense" and sentencing factors. 560 U.S., at ----, n. 3, ----, 130 S.Ct., at 2581-2582, and n. 3, 2583-2584; see also id., at ----, 130 S.Ct., at 2581-2582 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment) (describing the generic federal offense there as "the Controlled Substances Act felony of possession-plus-recidivism"). Indeed, the distinction between "elements" and "sentencing factors" did not exist when Congress added illicit drug trafficking to the list of aggravated felonies, Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, 102 *199Stat. 4469-4470, and most courts at the time understood both § 841(b)(1)(D) and § 841(b)(4) to contain sentencing factors that draw the line between a felony and a misdemeanor. See, e.g., United States v. Campuzano, 905 F.2d 677, 679 (C.A.2 1990). Carachuri-Rosendo controls here.

Finally, there is a more fundamental flaw in the Government's approach: It would render even an undisputed misdemeanor an aggravated felony. This is "just what the English language tells us not to expect," and that leaves us "very wary of the Government's position." Lopez, 549 U.S., at 54, 127 S.Ct. 625. Consider a conviction under a New York statute that provides, "A person is guilty of criminal sale of marihuana in the fifth degree when he knowingly and unlawfully sells, without consideration, [marihuana] of an aggregate weight of two grams or less ; or one cigarette containing marihuana." N.Y. Penal Law Ann. § 221.35 (West 2008) (emphasis added). This statute criminalizes only the distribution of a small amount of marijuana for no remuneration, and so all convictions under the statute would fit within the CSA misdemeanor provision, § 841(b)(4). But the Government would categorically deem a conviction under this statute to be an aggravated felony, because the statute contains the corresponding "elements" of (1) distributing (2) marijuana, and the Government believes all marijuana distribution offenses are punishable as felonies.

The same anomaly would result in the case of a noncitizen convicted of a misdemeanor in federal court under § 841(a) and (b)(4) directly. Even in that case, under the Government's logic, we would need to treat the federal misdemeanor conviction as an aggravated felony, because the conviction establishes elements of an offense that is presumptively a felony. This cannot be. "We cannot imagine that Congress took the trouble to incorporate its own statutory scheme of felonies and misdemeanors," only to have courts presume felony treatment and ignore the very factors that distinguish felonies from misdemeanors. Lopez, 549 U.S., at 58, 127 S.Ct. 625.

*1690B

*200Recognizing that its approach leads to consequences Congress could not have intended, the Government hedges its argument by proposing a remedy: Noncitizens should be given an opportunity during immigration proceedings to demonstrate that their predicate marijuana distribution convictions involved only a small amount of marijuana and no remuneration, just as a federal criminal defendant could do at sentencing. Brief for Respondent 35-39. This is the procedure adopted by the BIA in Matter of Castro Rodriguez, 25 I. & N. Dec. 698, 702 (2012), and endorsed by Justice ALITO's dissent, post, at 1701 - 1702.

This solution is entirely inconsistent with both the INA's text and the categorical approach. As noted, the relevant INA provisions ask what the noncitizen was "convicted of," not what he did, and the inquiry in immigration proceedings is limited accordingly. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), 1229b(a)(3) ; see Carachuri-Rosendo, 560 U.S., at ----, 130 S.Ct., at 2585-2586. The Government cites no statutory authority for such case-specific factfinding in immigration court, and none is apparent in the INA. Indeed, the Government's main categorical argument would seem to preclude this inquiry: If the Government were correct that "the fact of a marijuana-distribution conviction alone constitutes a CSA felony," Brief for Respondent 37, then all marijuana distribution convictions would categorically be convictions of the drug trafficking aggravated felony, mandatory deportation would follow under the statute, and there would be no room for the Government's follow-on factfinding procedure. The Government cannot have it both ways.

Moreover, the procedure the Government envisions would require precisely the sort of post hoc investigation into the facts of predicate offenses that we have long deemed undesirable. The categorical approach serves "practical" purposes: It promotes judicial and administrative efficiency by precluding the relitigation of past convictions in minitrials conducted *201long after the fact. Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. 122, 125, 129 S.Ct. 687, 172 L.Ed.2d 484 (2009) ; see also Mylius, 210 F., at 862-863. Yet the Government's approach would have our Nation's overburdened immigration courts entertain and weigh testimony from, for example, the friend of a noncitizen who may have shared a marijuana cigarette with him at a party, or the local police officer who recalls to the contrary that cash traded hands. And, as a result, two noncitizens, each "convicted of" the same offense, might obtain different aggravated felony determinations depending on what evidence remains available or how it is perceived by an individual immigration judge. The categorical approach was designed to avoid this "potential unfairness." Taylor, 495 U.S., at 601, 110 S.Ct. 2143; see also Mylius, 210 F., at 863.

Furthermore, the minitrials the Government proposes would be possible only if the noncitizen could locate witnesses years after the fact, notwithstanding that during removal proceedings noncitizens are not guaranteed legal representation and are often subject to mandatory detention, § 1226(c)(1)(B), where they have little ability to collect evidence. See Katzmann, The Legal Profession and the Unmet Needs of the Immigrant Poor, 21 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 3, 5-10 (2008) ; Brief for National Immigrant Justice Center et al. as Amici Curiae 5-18; Brief for Immigration Law Professors as Amici Curiae 27-32. A noncitizen in removal proceedings is not at all similarly situated to a defendant in a federal criminal prosecution. The Government's suggestion that the CSA's procedures could readily be replicated in immigration *1691proceedings is therefore misplaced. Cf. Carachuri-Rosendo, 560 U.S., at ----, 130 S.Ct., at 2587-2588 (rejecting the Government's argument that procedures governing determination of the recidivism sentencing factor could "be satisfied during the immigration proceeding").

The Government defends its proposed immigration court proceedings as "a subsequent step outside the categorical approach in light of Section 841(b)(4)'s 'circumstance-specific'

*202nature." Brief for Respondent 37. This argument rests upon Nijhawan, in which we considered another aggravated felony, "an offense that ... involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M) (i). We held that the $10,000 threshold was not to be applied categorically as a required component of a generic offense, but instead called for a " circumstance-specific approach" that allows for an examination, in immigration court, of the "particular circumstances in which an offender committed the crime on a particular occasion." Nijhawan, 557 U.S., at 38-40, 129 S.Ct. 2294. The Government suggests the § 841(b)(4) factors are like the monetary threshold, and thus similarly amenable to a circumstance-specific inquiry.

We explained in Nijhawan, however, that unlike the provision there, "illicit trafficking in a controlled substance" is a "generic crim[e]" to which the categorical approach applies, not a circumstance-specific provision. Id., at 37, 129 S.Ct. 2294; see also Carachuri-Rosendo, 560 U.S., at ----, n. 11, 130 S.Ct., at 2586-2587 n. 11. That distinction is evident in the structure of the INA. The monetary threshold is a limitation, written into the INA itself, on the scope of the aggravated felony for fraud. And the monetary threshold is set off by the words "in which," which calls for a circumstance-specific examination of "the conduct involved 'in ' the commission of the offense of conviction." Nijhawan, 557 U.S., at 39, 129 S.Ct. 2294. Locating this exception in the INA proper suggests an intent to have the relevant facts found in immigration proceedings. But where, as here, the INA incorporates other criminal statutes wholesale, we have held it "must refer to generic crimes," to which the categorical approach applies. Id., at 37, 129 S.Ct. 2294.

Finally, the Government suggests that the immigration court's task would not be so daunting in some cases, such as those in which a noncitizen was convicted under the New York statute previously discussed or convicted directly under § 841(b)(4). True, in those cases, the record of conviction might reveal on its face that the predicate offense was *203punishable only as a misdemeanor. But most States do not have stand-alone offenses for the social sharing of marijuana, so minitrials concerning convictions from the other States, such as Georgia, would be inevitable.10 The Government suggests that even in these other States, the record of conviction may often address the § 841(b)(4) factors, because noncitizens "will be advised of the immigration *1692consequences of a conviction," as defense counsel is required to do under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), and as a result counsel can build an appropriate record when the facts are fresh. Brief for Respondent 38. Even assuming defense counsel "will" do something simply because it is required of effective counsel (an assumption experience does not always bear out), this argument is unavailing because there is no reason to believe that state courts will regularly or uniformly admit evidence going to facts, such as remuneration, that are irrelevant to the offense charged.

In short, to avoid the absurd consequences that would flow from the Government's narrow understanding of the categorical approach, the Government proposes a solution that largely undermines the categorical approach. That the only cure is worse than the disease suggests the Government is simply wrong.

C

The Government fears the consequences of our decision, but its concerns are exaggerated. The Government observes *204that, like Georgia, about half the States criminalize marijuana distribution through statutes that do not require remuneration or any minimum quantity of marijuana. Id., at 26-28. As a result, the Government contends, noncitizens convicted of marijuana distribution offenses in those States will avoid "aggravated felony" determinations, purely because their convictions do not resolve whether their offenses involved federal felony conduct or misdemeanor conduct, even though many (if not most) prosecutions involve either remuneration or larger amounts of marijuana (or both).

Escaping aggravated felony treatment does not mean escaping deportation, though. It means only avoiding mandatory removal. See Carachuri-Rosendo, 560 U.S., at ----, 130 S.Ct., at 2589. Any marijuana distribution offense, even a misdemeanor, will still render a noncitizen deportable as a controlled substances offender. 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). At that point, having been found not to be an aggravated felon, the noncitizen may seek relief from removal such as asylum or cancellation of removal, assuming he satisfies the other eligibility criteria. §§ 1158(b), 1229b(a)(1)-(2). But those forms of relief are discretionary. The Attorney General may, in his discretion, deny relief if he finds that the noncitizen is actually a member of one "of the world's most dangerous drug cartels," post, at 1696 (opinion of ALITO, J.), just as he may deny relief if he concludes the negative equities outweigh the positive equities of the noncitizen's case for other reasons. As a result, "to the extent that our rejection of the Government's broad understanding of the scope of 'aggravated felony' may have any practical effect on policing our Nation's borders, it is a limited one." Carachuri-Rosendo, 560 U.S., at ----, 130 S.Ct., at 2589.

In any event, serious drug traffickers may be adjudicated aggravated felons regardless, because they will likely be convicted under greater "trafficking" offenses that necessarily establish that more than a small amount of marijuana was involved. See, e.g., Ga.Code Ann. § 16-13-31(c)(1) (Supp.2012)

*205(separate provision for trafficking in more than 10 pounds of marijuana). Of course, some offenders' conduct will fall between § 841(b)(4) conduct and the more serious conduct required to trigger a "trafficking" statute. Brief for Respondent 30. Those offenders may avoid aggravated felony status by operation of the categorical approach. But the Government's objection to that underinclusive result is little more than an attack on the *1693categorical approach itself.11 We prefer this degree of imperfection to the heavy burden of relitigating old prosecutions. See supra, at 1690 - 1691. And we err on the side of underinclusiveness because ambiguity in criminal statutes referenced by the INA must be construed in the noncitizen's favor. See Carachuri-Rosendo, 560 U.S., at ----, 130 S.Ct., at 2589 ; Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 11, n. 8, 125 S.Ct. 377, 160 L.Ed.2d 271 (2004).

Finally, the Government suggests that our holding will frustrate the enforcement of other aggravated felony provisions, like § 1101(a)(43)(C), which refers to a federal firearms statute that contains an exception for "antique firearm[s]," 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3). The Government fears that a conviction under any state firearms law that lacks such an exception will be deemed to fail the categorical inquiry. But Duenas-Alvarez *206requires that there be "a realistic probability, not a theoretical possibility, that the State would apply its statute to conduct that falls outside the generic definition of a crime." 549 U.S., at 193, 127 S.Ct. 815. To defeat the categorical comparison in this manner, a noncitizen would have to demonstrate that the State actually prosecutes the relevant offense in cases involving antique firearms. Further, the Government points to § 1101 (a)(43)(P), which makes passport fraud an aggravated felony, except when the noncitizen shows he committed the offense to assist an immediate family member. But that exception is provided in the INA itself. As we held in Nijhawan, a circumstance-specific inquiry would apply to that provision, so it is not comparable. 557 U.S., at 37-38, 129 S.Ct. 2294.

* * *

This is the third time in seven years that we have considered whether the Government has properly characterized a low-level drug offense as "illicit trafficking in a controlled substance," and thus an "aggravated felony." Once again we hold that the Government's approach defies "the 'commonsense conception' " of these terms. Carachuri-Rosendo, 560 U.S., at ----, 130 S.Ct., at 2584-2585 (quoting Lopez, 549 U.S., at 53, 127 S.Ct. 625). Sharing a small amount of marijuana for no remuneration, let alone possession with intent to do so, "does not fit easily into the 'everyday understanding' " of "trafficking," which " 'ordinarily ... means some sort of commercial dealing.' " Carachuri-Rosendo, 560 U.S., at ----, 130 S.Ct., at 2584-2585 (quoting Lopez, 549 U.S., at 53-54, 127 S.Ct. 625). Nor is it sensible that a state statute that criminalizes conduct that the CSA treats as a misdemeanor should be designated an "aggravated felony." We hold that it may not be. If a noncitizen's conviction for a marijuana distribution offense fails to establish that the offense involved either remuneration or more than *1694a small amount of marijuana, the conviction is not for an aggravated felony under the INA. The contrary judgment of the Court of Appeals *207is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice THOMAS, dissenting.

A plain reading of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2) identifies two requirements that must be satisfied for a state offense to qualify as a "felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act [ (CSA) ]." "First, the offense must be a felony; second, the offense must be capable of punishment under the [CSA]." Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47, 61, 127 S.Ct. 625, 166 L.Ed.2d 462 (2006) (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Moncrieffe's offense of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute satisfies both elements. No one disputes that Georgia punishes Moncrieffe's offense as a felony. See Ga.Code Ann. § 16-13-30(j)(2) (Supp.2012). ("Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c) of Code Section 16-13-31 or in Code Section 16-13-2, any person who violates this subsection shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years").1 And, the offense is "punishable under the [CSA]," 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2), because it involved "possess[ion] with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance," 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Accordingly, Moncrieffe's offense is a "drug trafficking crime," 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2), which constitutes *208an "aggravated felony" under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B).2

The Court rejected the plain meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2) in Lopez, 549 U.S., at 50, 127 S.Ct. 625. There, the defendant was convicted of a state felony, but his offense would have been a misdemeanor under the CSA. Id., at 53, 127 S.Ct. 625. The Court held that the offense did not constitute a " 'felony punishable under the [CSA]' " because it was not "punishable as a felony under that federal law." Id., at 60, 127 S.Ct. 625 (quoting § 924(c)(2) ; emphasis added). I dissented in Lopez and warned that an inquiry into whether a state offense would constitute a felony in a hypothetical federal prosecution would cause "significant inconsistencies." Id., at 63, 127 S.Ct. 625. I explained that one such inconsistency would arise if an alien defendant never convicted of an actual state felony were subject to deportation based on a hypothetical federal prosecution. Id., at 67, 127 S.Ct. 625.

*1695This precise issue arose in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. ----, 130 S.Ct. 2577, 177 L.Ed.2d 68 (2010). Instead of following the logic of Lopez, however, the Court contorted the law to avoid the harsh result compelled by that decision. In Carachuri-Rosendo, the defendant was convicted of a crime that the State categorized as a misdemeanor, but his offense would have been a felony under the CSA because he had a prior conviction. 560 U.S., at ----, 130 S.Ct., at ----. The Court held that the offense did not constitute an "aggravated felony" because the state prosecutor had not charged the existence of a prior conviction and, thus, the defendant was not "actually convicted of a crime that is itself punishable as a felony under federal law." Id., at ----, 130 S.Ct., at 2589. Concurring in the judgment, I *209explained that the Court's decision was inconsistent with Lopez because the defendant's conduct was punishable as a felony under the CSA, but that Lopez was wrongly decided and that a proper reading of § 924(c)(2) supported the Court's result. 560 U.S., at ----, 130 S.Ct., at 2580. Carachuri-Rosendo's crime of conviction was a state-law misdemeanor and, as a result, it did not qualify as a "felony punishable under the [CSA]." See ibid.

I declined to apply Lopez in Carachuri-Rosendo, and I am unwilling to apply it here. Indeed, the Court itself declined to follow the logic of Lopez to its natural end in Carachuri-Rosendo . And, now the majority's ill-advised approach once again leads to an anomalous result. It is undisputed that, for federal sentencing purposes, Moncrieffe's offense would constitute a federal felony unless he could prove that he distributed only a small amount of marijuana for no remuneration. Cf. United States v. Outen, 286 F.3d 622, 637-639 (C.A.2 2002) (Sotomayor, J.) (agreeing with the Government that 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(4) is a mitigating exception to the "default provision" under § 841(b)(1)(D) and that it need not negate the § 841(b)(4) factors to support a sentence under § 841(b)(1)(D) ). But, the Court holds that, for purposes of the INA, Moncrieffe's offense would necessarily correspond to a federal misdemeanor, regardless of whether he could in fact prove that he distributed only a small amount of marijuana for no remuneration. Ante, at 1687 - 1688 (asserting that neither § 841(b)(1)(D) nor § 841(b)(4) is the "default" provision). The Court's decision, thus, has the effect of treating a substantial number of state felonies as federal misdemeanors, even when they would result in federal felony convictions.

The majority notes that "[t]his is the third time in seven years that we have considered whether the Government has properly characterized a low-level drug offense as ... an 'aggravated felony.' " Ante, at 1693. The Court has brought this upon itself. The only principle uniting Lopez, Carachuri-Rosendo, and the decision today appears to be *210that the Government consistently loses. If the Court continues to disregard the plain meaning of § 924(c)(2), I expect that these types of cases will endlessly-and needlessly-recur.

I respectfully dissent.

Justice ALITO, dissenting.

The Court's decision in this case is not supported by the language of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) or by this Court's precedents, and it leads to results that Congress clearly did not intend.

Under the INA, aliens1 who are convicted of certain offenses may be removed *1696from this country, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2) (2006 ed. and Supp. V), but in many instances, the Attorney General (acting through the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)) has the discretion to cancel removal, §§ 1229b(a), (b). Aliens convicted of especially serious crimes, however, are ineligible for cancellation of removal. § 1229b(a)(3) (2006 ed.). Among the serious crimes that carry this consequence is "illicit trafficking in a controlled substance." § 1101(a)(43)(B).

Under the Court's holding today, however, drug traffickers in about half the States are granted a dispensation. In those States, even if an alien is convicted of possessing tons of marijuana with the intent to distribute, the alien is eligible to remain in this country. Large-scale marijuana distribution is a major source of income for some of the world's most dangerous drug cartels, Dept. of Justice, National Drug Intelligence Center, National Drug Threat Assessment 2, 7 (2011), but the Court now holds that an alien convicted of *211participating in such activity may petition to remain in this country.

The Court's decision also means that the consequences of a conviction for illegal possession with intent to distribute will vary radically depending on the State in which the case is prosecuted. Consider, for example, an alien who is arrested near the Georgia-Florida border in possession of a large supply of marijuana. Under the Court's holding, if the alien is prosecuted and convicted in Georgia for possession with intent to distribute, he is eligible for cancellation of removal. But if instead he is caught on the Florida side of the line and is convicted in a Florida court-where possession with intent to distribute a small amount of marijuana for no remuneration is covered by a separate statutory provision, compare Fla. Stat. § 893.13(3) (2010) with § 893.13(1)(a)(2) -the alien is likely to be ineligible. Can this be what Congress intended?

I

Certainly the text of the INA does not support such a result. In analyzing the relevant INA provisions, the starting point is 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3), which provides that a lawful permanent resident alien subject to removal may apply for discretionary cancellation of removal if he has not been convicted of any "aggravated felony." The term "aggravated felony" encompasses "illicit tracking in a controlled substance ... including a drug trafficking crime (as defined in [ 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) ] )." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B). And this latter provision defines a "drug trafficking crime" to include "any felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act ( 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq. )." 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2). Thus "any felony punishable under the [CSA]" is an "aggravated felony."

Where an alien has a prior federal conviction, it is a straightforward matter to determine whether the conviction was for a "felony punishable under the [CSA]." But 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43) introduces a complication. That provision *212states that the statutory definition of "aggravated felony" " applies to an offense described in this paragraph whether in violation of Federal or State law ." (Emphasis added.) As noted, the statutory definition of "aggravated felony" includes a "felony punishable under the [CSA]," and therefore *1697§ 1101(a)(43)(B) makes it necessary to determine what is meant by a state "offense" that is a "felony punishable under the [CSA]."

What § 1101(a)(43) obviously contemplates is that the BIA or a court will identify conduct associated with the state offense and then determine whether that conduct would have supported a qualifying conviction under the federal CSA.2 Identifying and evaluating this relevant conduct is the question that confounds the Court's analysis. Before turning to that question, however, some preliminary principles should be established.

In Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47, 50, 127 S.Ct. 625, 166 L.Ed.2d 462 (2006), we held that felony status is controlled by federal, not state, law. As a result, once the relevant conduct is identified, it must be determined whether proof of that conduct would support a felony conviction under the CSA. The federal definition of a felony is a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(1)-(5). Consequently, if the *213proof of the relevant conduct would support a conviction under the CSA for which the maximum term of imprisonment is more than one year, the state conviction qualifies as a conviction for an "aggravated felony."

II

This brings us to the central question presented in this case: how to determine and evaluate the conduct that constitutes the state "offense." One possibility is that actual conduct is irrelevant, and that only the elements of the state crime for which the alien was convicted matter. We have called this the "categorical approach," Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 600, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990), and we have generally used this approach in determining whether a state conviction falls within a federal definition of a crime, see id., at 600-601, 110 S.Ct. 2143 (" Section 924(e)(2)(B)(i) defines 'violent felony' as any crime punishable by imprisonment for more than a year that 'has as an element'-not any crime that, in a particular case, involves-the use or threat of force. Read in this context, the phrase 'is burglary' in § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) most likely refers to the elements of the statute of conviction, not to the facts of each defendant's conduct"). But, as will be discussed below, we have also departed in important ways from a pure categorical approach.

The Court's opinion in this case conveys the impression that its analysis is based on the categorical approach, but that is simply not so. On the contrary, a pure categorical approach leads very quickly to the conclusion that petitioner's Georgia conviction was a conviction for an "aggravated felony."

The elements of the Georgia offense were as follows: knowledge, possession of *1698marijuana, and the intent to distribute it. Ga.Code Ann. § 16-13-30(j)(1) (2007); Jackson v. State, 295 Ga.App. 427, 435, n. 28, 671 S.E.2d 902, 909, n. 28 (2009). Proof of those elements would be sufficient to support a conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), and the maximum *214punishment for that offense is imprisonment for up to five years, § 841(b)(1)(D) (2006 ed., Supp. V), more than enough to qualify for felony treatment. Thus, under a pure categorical approach, petitioner's Georgia conviction would qualify as a conviction for an "aggravated felony" and would render him ineligible for cancellation of removal.

The Court departs from this analysis because § 841(b)(4) provides a means by which a defendant convicted of violating § 841(a) (2006 ed.) may lower the maximum term of imprisonment to no more than one year. That provision states that "any person who violates [ § 841(a) ] by distributing a small amount of marihuana for no remuneration shall be treated as" a defendant convicted of simple possession, and a defendant convicted of that lesser offense faces a maximum punishment of one year's imprisonment (provided that the defendant does not have a prior simple possession conviction), § 844 (2006 ed., Supp. V). Reading this provision together with § 841(a), the Court proceeds as if the CSA created a two-tiered possession-with-intent-to-distribute offense: a base offense that is punishable as a misdemeanor and a second-tier offense (possession with intent to distribute more than a "small amount" of marijuana or possession with intent to distribute for remuneration) that is punishable as a felony.

If the CSA actually created such a two-tiered offense, the pure categorical approach would lead to the conclusion that petitioner's Georgia conviction was not for an "aggravated felony." The elements of the Georgia offense would not suffice to prove the second-tier offense, which would require proof that petitioner possessed more than a "small amount" of marijuana or that he intended to obtain remuneration for its distribution. Instead, proof of the elements of the Georgia crime would merely establish a violation of the base offense, which would be a misdemeanor.

The CSA, however, does not contain any such two-tiered provision. And § 841(b)(4) does not alter the elements of the *215§ 841(a) offense. As the Court notes, every Court of Appeals to consider the question has held that § 841(a) is the default offense and that § 841(b)(4) is only a mitigating sentencing guideline, see United States v. Outen, 286 F.3d 622, 636-639 (C.A.2 2002) (Sotomayor, J.) (describing § 841(b)(4) as a " mitigating exception"); United States v. Hamlin, 319 F.3d 666, 670 (C.A.4 2003) (collecting cases), and the Court does not disagree, ante, at 1687 - 1689.

Confirmation of this interpretation is provided by the use of the term "small amount" in § 841(b)(4). If § 841(b)(4) had been meant to alter the elements of § 841(a), Congress surely would not have used such a vague term. Due process requires that the elements of a criminal statute be defined with specificity. Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 393, 46 S.Ct. 126, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926). Accordingly, it is apparent that § 841(b)(4) does not modify the elements of § 841(a) but instead constitutes what is in essence a mandatory sentencing guideline. Under this provision, if a defendant is convicted of violating § 841(a), the defendant may attempt to prove that he possessed only a "small amount" of marijuana and that he did not intend to obtain remuneration for its distribution. If the defendant succeeds in convincing the sentencing judge, the maximum term of imprisonment is lowered to one year.

*1699In sum, contrary to the impression that the Court's opinion seeks to convey, the Court's analysis does not follow the pure categorical approach.

III

Nor is the Court's analysis supported by prior case law. The Court claims that its approach follows from our decision in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. ----, 130 S.Ct. 2577, 177 L.Ed.2d 68 (2010), but that case-unlike the Court's opinion-faithfully applied the pure categorical approach.

In Carachuri-Rosendo, the alien had been convicted in a Texas court for simple possession of a controlled substance. Id ., at ----, 130 S.Ct., at 2583. At the time of that conviction, Carachuri-Rosendo had a prior state conviction for simple *216possession, but this fact was not charged or proved at his trial and was apparently not taken into account in setting his sentence, which was 10 days in jail. Id ., at ----, ---- - ----, 130 S.Ct., at 2582-2583. Arguing that Carachuri-Rosendo was ineligible for cancellation of removal, the Government maintained that his second simple possession conviction qualified under the INA as a conviction for an " aggravated felony." Id ., at ----, 130 S.Ct., at 2582-2583. This was so, the Government contended, because, if Carachuri-Rosendo's second simple-possession prosecution had been held in federal court, he could have been punished by a sentence of up to two years due to his prior simple possession conviction. Id ., at ----, 130 S.Ct., at 2582-2583.

This more severe sentence, however, would have required the federal prosecutor to file a formal charge alleging the prior conviction; Carachuri-Rosendo would have been given the opportunity to defend against that charge; and the heightened sentence could not have been imposed unless the court found that the prior conviction had occurred. Id ., at ----, 130 S.Ct., at 2587-2588.

Our rejection of the Government's argument thus represented a straightforward application of the pure categorical approach. The elements of the Texas offense for which Carachuri-Rosendo was convicted were knowledge or intent, possession of a controlled substance without a prescription, and nothing more. Id., at ----, 130 S.Ct., at 2583; Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.117(a), (b) (West 2010). Proof of a prior simple possession conviction was not required, and no such proof appears to have been offered. The maximum penalty that could have been imposed under federal law for simple possession (without proof of a prior simple possession conviction) was one year's imprisonment. Thus, proof in federal court of the elements of the Texas offense would not have permitted a felony-length sentence, and consequently the state conviction did not qualify as a felony punishable under the CSA.

IV

*217Unsupported by either the categorical approach or our prior cases, the decision of the Court rests instead on the Court's belief-which I share-that the application of the pure categorical approach in this case would lead to results that Congress surely did not intend.

Suppose that an alien who is found to possess two marijuana cigarettes is convicted in a state court for possession with intent to distribute based on evidence that he intended to give one of the cigarettes to a friend. Under the pure categorical approach, this alien would be regarded as having committed an "aggravated felony." But this classification is plainly out of step with the CSA's assessment of the severity of the alien's crime because under the CSA

*1700the alien could obtain treatment as a misdemeanant by taking advantage of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(4).

For this reason, I agree with the Court that such an alien should not be treated as having committed an "aggravated felony." In order to avoid this result, however, it is necessary to depart from the categorical approach, and that is what the Court has done. But the particular way in which the Court has departed has little to recommend it.

To begin, the Court's approach is analytically confused. As already discussed, the Court treats § 841(b)(4) as if it modified the elements of § 841(a), when in fact § 841(b)(4) does no such thing. And the Court obviously knows this because it does not suggest that § 841(b)(4) changes the elements of § 841(a) for criminal law purposes.3

*218In addition, the Court's approach leads to the strange and disruptive results noted at the beginning of this opinion. As an initial matter, it leads to major drug trafficking crimes in about half the States being excluded from the category of "illicit trafficking in a controlled substance." Moreover, it leads to significant disparities between equally culpable defendants. We adopted the categorical approach to avoid disparities in our treatment of defendants convicted in different States for committing the same criminal conduct. See Taylor, 495 U.S., at 590-591, 110 S.Ct. 2143 (rejecting the view that state law determined the meaning of "burglary" because "[t]hat would mean that a person convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm would, or would not, receive a sentence enhancement based on exactly the same conduct, depending on whether the State of his prior conviction happened to call that conduct 'burglary' "). Yet the Court reintroduces significant disparity into our treatment of drug offenders. All of this can be avoided by candidly acknowledging that the categorical approach is not the be-all and end-all.

When Congress wishes to make federal law dependent on certain prior state convictions, it faces a difficult task. The INA provisions discussed above confront this problem, and their clear objective is to identify categories of criminal conduct that evidence such a high degree of societal danger that an alien found to have engaged in such conduct should not be allowed to obtain permission to remain in this country. Since the vast majority of crimes are prosecuted in the state courts, Congress naturally looked to state, as well as federal, convictions as a metric for identifying these dangerous aliens.

*219But state criminal codes vary widely, and some state crimes are defined so broadly that they encompass both very serious and much less serious cases. In cases involving such state provisions, a *1701pure categorical approach may frustrate Congress' objective.

The Court has said that the categorical approach finds support in the term "conviction." Taylor, supra, at 600, 110 S.Ct. 2143; Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 19, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005). But the Court has never held that a pure categorical approach is dictated by the use of that term,4 and I do not think that it is. In ordinary speech, when it is said that a person was convicted of or for doing something, the "something" may include facts that go beyond the bare elements of the relevant criminal offense. For example, it might be said that an art thief was convicted of or for stealing a Rembrandt oil painting even though neither the identity of the artist nor the medium used in the painting are elements of the standard offense of larceny. See 3 W. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 19.1(a) (2d ed.2003).

For these reasons, departures from the categorical approach are warranted, and this Court has already sanctioned such departures in several circumstances. See Taylor, supra, at 602, 110 S.Ct. 2143 (modified categorical approach); Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 193, 127 S.Ct. 815, 166 L.Ed.2d 683 (2007) (categorical approach does not exclude state-law convictions unless there is "a realistic probability, not a theoretical possibility, that the State would apply its statute to conduct that falls outside the generic definition of a crime"); Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29, 32, 129 S.Ct. 2294, 174 L.Ed.2d 22 (2009) (interpreting an enumerated "aggravated felony" in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43) not to be a generic crime).

*220Consistent with the flexibility that the Court has already recognized, I would hold that the categorical approach is not controlling where the state conviction at issue was based on a state statute that encompasses both a substantial number of cases that qualify under the federal standard and a substantial number that do not. In such situations, it is appropriate to look beyond the elements of the state offense and to rely as well on facts that were admitted in state court or that, taking a realistic view, were clearly proved. Such a look beyond the elements is particularly appropriate in a case like this, which involves a civil proceeding before an expert agency that regularly undertakes factual inquiries far more daunting than any that would be involved here. See, e.g., Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511, 129 S.Ct. 1159, 173 L.Ed.2d 20 (2009).

Applying this approach in the present case, what we find is that the Georgia statute under which petitioner was convicted broadly encompasses both relatively minor offenses (possession of a small amount of marijuana with the intent to share) and serious crimes (possession with intent to distribute large amounts of marijuana in exchange for millions of dollars of profit). We also find that petitioner had the opportunity before the BIA to show that his criminal conduct fell into the category of relatively minor offenses carved out by § 841(b)(4). Administrative Record 16-26. The BIA takes the entirely sensible view that an alien who is convicted for possession with intent to distribute may show that his conviction was not for an "aggravated felony" by proving that his conduct fell within § 841(b)(4).

*1702Matter of Castro Rodriguez, 25 I. & N. Dec. 698, 701-702 (2012). Petitioner, for whatever reason, availed himself only of the opportunity to show that his conviction had involved a small amount of marijuana and did not present evidence-or even contend-that his offense had not involved remuneration. Administrative Record 16-26, 37. As a result, I think we have no alternative but to affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals, which in turn affirmed the BIA.

Justice THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 66 Stat. 163, as amended, provides that "[a]ny alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony after admission" to the United States may be removed from the country by the Attorney General. 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). One of the many crimes that constitutes an aggravated felony under the INA is "sexual abuse of a minor." § 1101(a)(43)(A). A conviction for sexual abuse of a minor is an aggravated felony regardless of whether it is for a "violation of Federal or State law." § 1101(a)(43). The INA does not expressly define sexual abuse of a minor.

We must decide whether a conviction under a state statute criminalizing consensual sexual intercourse between a 21-year-old and a 17-year-old qualifies as sexual abuse of a minor under the INA. We hold that it does not.

I

Petitioner Juan Esquivel-Quintana is a native and citizen of Mexico. He was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 2000. In 2009, he pleaded no contest in the Superior Court of California to a statutory rape offense: "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than the perpetrator," Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 261.5(c) (West 2014); see also § 261.5(a) ("Unlawful sexual intercourse is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of the perpetrator, if the person is a minor"). For purposes of that offense, California defines "minor" as "a person under the age of 18 years." Ibid.

The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against petitioner based on that conviction. An Immigration Judge concluded that the conviction qualified as "sexual abuse of a minor," 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A), and ordered petitioner removed to Mexico. The Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissed his appeal. 26 I. & N. Dec. 469 (2015). "[F]or a statutory rape offense involving a 16- or 17-year-old victim" to qualify as " 'sexual abuse of a minor,' " it reasoned, "the statute must require a meaningful age difference between the victim and the perpetrator." Id., at 477. In its view, the 3-year age difference required by Cal. Penal Code § 261.5(c) was meaningful. Id., at 477. Accordingly, the Board concluded that petitioner's crime of conviction was an aggravated felony, making him removable under the INA. Ibid. A divided Court of Appeals denied Esquivel-Quintana's petition for review, deferring to the Board's interpretation of sexual abuse of a minor under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). 810 F.3d 1019 (C.A.6 2016) ; see also id., at 1027 (Sutton, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). We granted certiorari, 580 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 368, 196 L.Ed.2d 283 (2016), and now reverse.

II

Section 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) makes aliens removable based on the nature of their convictions, not based on their actual conduct. See Mellouli v. Lynch, 575 U.S. ----, ----, 135 S.Ct. 1980, 1986-1987, 192 L.Ed.2d 60 (2015). Accordingly, to determine whether an alien's conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony under that *1568section, we "employ a categorical approach by looking to the statute ... of conviction, rather than to the specific facts underlying the crime." Kawashima v. Holder, 565 U.S. 478, 483, 132 S.Ct. 1166, 182 L.Ed.2d 1 (2012) ; see, e.g., Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 186, 127 S.Ct. 815, 166 L.Ed.2d 683 (2007) (applying the categorical approach set forth in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990), to the INA). Under that approach, we ask whether " 'the state statute defining the crime of conviction' categorically fits within the 'generic' federal definition of a corresponding aggravated felony." Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184, 190, 133 S.Ct. 1678, 185 L.Ed.2d 727 (2013) (quoting Duenas-Alvarez, supra, at 186, 127 S.Ct. 815 ). In other words, we presume that the state conviction "rested upon ... the least of th[e] acts" criminalized by the statute, and then we determine whether that conduct would fall within the federal definition of the crime. Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133, 137, 130 S.Ct. 1265, 176 L.Ed.2d 1 (2010) ; see also Moncrieffe, supra, at 191, 133 S.Ct. 1678 (focusing "on the minimum conduct criminalized by the state statute").1 Petitioner's state conviction is thus an "aggravated felony" under the INA only if the least of the acts criminalized by the state statute falls within the generic federal definition of sexual abuse of a minor.

A

Because Cal. Penal Code § 261.5(c) criminalizes "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than the perpetrator" and defines a minor as someone under age 18, the conduct criminalized under this provision would be, at a minimum, consensual sexual intercourse between a victim who is almost 18 and a perpetrator who just turned 21. Regardless of the actual facts of petitioner's crime, we must presume that his conviction was based on acts that were no more criminal than that. If those acts do not constitute sexual abuse of a minor under the INA, then petitioner was not convicted of an aggravated felony and is not, on that basis, removable.

Petitioner concedes that sexual abuse of a minor under the INA includes some statutory rape offenses. But he argues that a statutory rape offense based solely on the partners' ages (like the one here) is " 'abuse' " "only when the younger partner is under 16." Reply Brief 2. Because the California statute criminalizes sexual intercourse when the victim is up to 17 years old, petitioner contends that it does not categorically qualify as sexual abuse of a minor.

B

We agree with petitioner that, in the context of statutory rape offenses that criminalize sexual intercourse based solely on the age of the participants, the generic federal definition of sexual abuse of a minor requires that the victim be younger than 16. Because the California statute at issue in this case does not categorically fall within that definition, a conviction pursuant to it is not an aggravated felony under § 1101(a)(43)(A). We begin, as always, with the text.

*15691

Section 1101(a)(43)(A) does not expressly define sexual abuse of a minor, so we interpret that phrase using the normal tools of statutory interpretation. "Our analysis begins with the language of the statute." Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 8, 125 S.Ct. 377, 160 L.Ed.2d 271 (2004) ; see also Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47, 53, 127 S.Ct. 625, 166 L.Ed.2d 462 (2006) ("The everyday understanding of" the term used in § 1101"should count for a lot here, for the statutes in play do not define the term, and so remit us to regular usage to see what Congress probably meant").

Congress added sexual abuse of a minor to the INA in 1996, as part of a comprehensive immigration reform act. See Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, § 321(a)(i), 110 Stat. 3009-627. At that time, the ordinary meaning of "sexual abuse" included "the engaging in sexual contact with a person who is below a specified age or who is incapable of giving consent because of age or mental or physical incapacity." Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law 454 (1996). By providing that the abuse must be "of a minor," the INA focuses on age, rather than mental or physical incapacity. Accordingly, to qualify as sexual abuse of a minor, the statute of conviction must prohibit certain sexual acts based at least in part on the age of the victim.

Statutory rape laws are one example of this category of crimes. Those laws generally provide that an older person may not engage in sexual intercourse with a younger person under a specified age, known as the "age of consent." See id., at 20 (defining "age of consent" as "the age at which a person is deemed competent by law to give consent esp. to sexual intercourse" and cross-referencing "statutory rape"). Many laws also require an age differential between the two partners.

Although the age of consent for statutory rape purposes varies by jurisdiction, see infra, at 1571, reliable dictionaries provide evidence that the "generic" age-in 1996 and today-is 16. See B. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage 38 (2d ed. 1995) ("Age of consent, usu[ally] 16, denotes the age when one is legally capable of agreeing ... to sexual intercourse" and cross-referencing "statutory rape"); Black's Law Dictionary 73 (10th ed. 2014) (noting that the age of consent is "usu[ally] defined by statute as 16 years").

2

Relying on a different dictionary (and "sparse" legislative history), the Government suggests an alternative " 'everyday understanding' " of "sexual abuse of a minor." Brief for Respondent 16-17 (citing Black's Law Dictionary 1375 (6th ed. 1990)). Around the time sexual abuse of a minor was added to the INA's list of aggravated felonies, that dictionary defined "[s]exual abuse" as "[i]llegal sex acts performed against a minor by a parent, guardian, relative, or acquaintance," and defined "[m]inor" as "[a]n infant or person who is under the age of legal competence," which in "most states" was "18." Id., at 997, 1375. " 'Sexual abuse of a minor,' " the Government accordingly contends, "most naturally connotes conduct that (1) is illegal, (2) involves sexual activity, and (3) is directed at a person younger than 18 years old." Brief for Respondent 17.

We are not persuaded that the generic federal offense corresponds to the Government's definition. First, the Government's proposed definition is flatly inconsistent with the definition of sexual abuse contained in the very dictionary on which it relies; the Government's proposed definition does not require that the act be performed "by a parent, guardian, relative, or acquaintance ." Black's Law Dictionary 1375 (6th ed. 1990) (emphasis added). In *1570any event, as we explain below, offenses predicated on a special relationship of trust between the victim and offender are not at issue here and frequently have a different age requirement than the general age of consent. Second, in the context of statutory rape, the prepositional phrase "of a minor" naturally refers not to the age of legal competence (when a person is legally capable of agreeing to a contract, for example), but to the age of consent (when a person is legally capable of agreeing to sexual intercourse). Third, the Government's definition turns the categorical approach on its head by defining the generic federal offense of sexual abuse of a minor as whatever is illegal under the particular law of the State where the defendant was convicted. Under the Government's preferred approach, there is no "generic" definition at all. See Taylor, 495 U.S., at 591, 110 S.Ct. 2143 (requiring "a clear indication that ... Congress intended to abandon its general approach of using uniform categorical definitions to identify predicate offenses"); id., at 592, 110 S.Ct. 2143 ("We think that 'burglary' in § 924(e) must have some uniform definition independent of the labels employed by the various States' criminal codes").

C

The structure of the INA, a related federal statute, and evidence from state criminal codes confirm that, for a statutory rape offense to qualify as sexual abuse of a minor under the INA based solely on the age of the participants, the victim must be younger than 16.

1

Surrounding provisions of the INA guide our interpretation of sexual abuse of a minor. See A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 167 (2012). This offense is listed in the INA as an "aggravated felony." 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (emphasis added). "An 'aggravated' offense is one 'made worse or more serious by circumstances such as violence, the presence of a deadly weapon, or the intent to commit another crime.' " Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563, 574, 130 S.Ct. 2577, 177 L.Ed.2d 68 (2010) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 75 (9th ed. 2009)). Moreover, the INA lists sexual abuse of a minor in the same subparagraph as "murder" and "rape," § 1101(a)(43)(A) -among the most heinous crimes it defines as aggravated felonies. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). The structure of the INA therefore suggests that sexual abuse of a minor encompasses only especially egregious felonies.

A closely related federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2243, provides further evidence that the generic federal definition of sexual abuse of a minor incorporates an age of consent of 16, at least in the context of statutory rape offenses predicated solely on the age of the participants. Cf. Leocal, 543 U.S., at 12-13, n. 9, 125 S.Ct. 377 (concluding that Congress' treatment of 18 U.S.C. § 16 in an Act passed "just nine months earlier" provided "stron [g] suppor[t]" for our interpretation of § 16 as incorporated into the INA); Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Services, Inc., 551 U.S. 224, 232, 127 S.Ct. 2411, 168 L.Ed.2d 112 (2007). Section 2243, which criminalizes "[s]exual abuse of a minor or ward," contains the only definition of that phrase in the United States Code. As originally enacted in 1986, § 2243 proscribed engaging in a "sexual act" with a person between the ages of 12 and 16 if the perpetrator was at least four years older than the victim. In 1996, Congress expanded § 2243 to include victims who were younger than 12, thereby protecting anyone under the age of 16. § 2243(a) ; see also § 2241(c). Congress did this in the same omnibus law that added sexual abuse of a minor to the INA, which suggests that *1571Congress understood that phrase to cover victims under age 16.2 See Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, §§ 121(7), 321,110 Stat. 3009-31, 3009-627.

Petitioner does not contend that the definition in § 2243(a) must be imported wholesale into the INA, Brief for Petitioner 17, and we do not do so. One reason is that the INA does not cross-reference § 2243(a), whereas many other aggravated felonies in the INA are defined by cross-reference to other provisions of the United States Code, see, e.g., § 1101(a)(43)(H) ("an offense described in section 875, 876, 877, or 1202 of Title 18 (relating to the demand for or receipt of ransom)"). Another is that § 2243(a) requires a 4-year age difference between the perpetrator and the victim. Combining that element with a 16-year age of consent would categorically exclude the statutory rape laws of most States. See Brief for Respondent 34-35; cf. Taylor, 495 U.S., at 594, 110 S.Ct. 2143 (declining to "constru[e] 'burglary' to mean common-law burglary," because that "would come close to nullifying that term's effect in the statute," since "few of the crimes now generally recognized as burglaries would fall within the common-law definition"). Accordingly, we rely on § 2243(a) for evidence of the meaning of sexual abuse of a minor, but not as providing the complete or exclusive definition.

2

As in other cases where we have applied the categorical approach, we look to state criminal codes for additional evidence about the generic meaning of sexual abuse of a minor. See Taylor, 495 U.S., at 598, 110 S.Ct. 2143 (interpreting " 'burglary' " under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 according to "the generic sense in which the term is now used in the criminal codes of most States"); Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S., at 190, 127 S.Ct. 815 (interpreting "theft" in the INA in the same manner). When "sexual abuse of a minor" was added to the INA in 1996, thirty-one States and the District of Columbia set the age of consent at 16 for statutory rape offenses that hinged solely on the age of the participants. As for the other States, one set the age of consent at 14; two set the age of consent at 15; six set the age of consent at 17; and the remaining ten, including California, set the age of consent at 18. See Appendix, infra ; cf. ALI, Model Penal Code § 213.3(1)(a) (1980) (in the absence of a special relationship, setting the default age of consent at 16 for the crime of "[c]orruption of [m]inors").3 A significant majority of jurisdictions thus set the age of consent at 16 for statutory rape offenses predicated exclusively on the age of the participants.

Many jurisdictions set a different age of consent for offenses that include an element apart from the age of the participants, such as offenses that focus on whether the perpetrator is in some special relationship of trust with the victim. That *1572was true in the two States that had offenses labeled "sexual abuse of a minor" in 1996. See Alaska Stat. § 11.41.438 (1996) (age of consent for third-degree "sexual abuse of a minor" was 16 generally but 18 where "the offender occupie[d] a position of authority in relation to the victim"); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 17-A, § 254(1) (1983), as amended by 1995 Me. Laws p. 123 (age of consent for "[s]exual abuse of minors" was 16 generally but 18 where the victim was "a student" and the offender was "a teacher, employee or other official in the ... school ... in which the student [was] enrolled"). And that is true in four of the five jurisdictions that have offenses titled "sexual abuse of a minor" today. Compare, e.g., D.C. Code §§ 22-3001 (2012), 22-3008 (2016 Cum. Supp.) (age of consent is 16 in the absence of a significant relationship) with § 22-3009.01 (age of consent is 18 where the offender "is in a significant relationship" with the victim); see also Brief for Respondent 31 (listing statutes with that title). Accordingly, the generic crime of sexual abuse of a minor may include a different age of consent where the perpetrator and victim are in a significant relationship of trust. As relevant to this case, however, the general consensus from state criminal codes points to the same generic definition as dictionaries and federal law: Where sexual intercourse is abusive solely because of the ages of the participants, the victim must be younger than 16.

D

The laws of many States and of the Federal Government include a minimum age differential (in addition to an age of consent) in defining statutory rape. We need not and do not decide whether the generic crime of sexual abuse of a minor under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A) includes an additional element of that kind. Petitioner has "show[n] something special about California's version of the doctrine"-that the age of consent is 18, rather than 16-and needs no more to prevail. Duenas-Alvarez, supra, at 191, 127 S.Ct. 815. Absent some special relationship of trust, consensual sexual conduct involving a younger partner who is at least 16 years of age does not qualify as sexual abuse of a minor under the INA, regardless of the age differential between the two participants. We leave for another day whether the generic offense requires a particular age differential between the victim and the perpetrator, and whether the generic offense encompasses sexual intercourse involving victims over the age of 16 that is abusive because of the nature of the relationship between the participants.

III

Finally, petitioner and the Government debate whether the Board's interpretation of sexual abuse of a minor is entitled to deference under Chevron, 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694. Petitioner argues that any ambiguity in the meaning of this phrase must be resolved in favor of the alien under the rule of lenity. See Brief for Petitioner 41-45. The Government responds that ambiguities should be resolved by deferring to the Board's interpretation. See Brief for Respondent 45-53. We have no need to resolve whether the rule of lenity or Chevron receives priority in this case because the statute, read in context, unambiguously forecloses the Board's interpretation. Therefore, neither the rule of lenity nor Chevron applies.

* * *

We hold that in the context of statutory rape offenses focused solely on the age of the participants, the generic federal definition *1573of "sexual abuse of a minor" under § 1101(a)(43)(A) requires the age of the victim to be less than 16. The judgment of the Court of Appeals, accordingly, is reversed.

It is so ordered.

Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

APPENDIX

These tables list offenses criminalizing sexual intercourse solely because of the age of the participants. The tables are organized according to the statutory age of consent as of September 30, 1996-the date "sexual abuse of a minor" was added to the INA.

14 Years

Hawaii Haw. Rev. Stat. § 707-730(1)(b) (1993)

15 Years

Colorado Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-403(1)(e) (1997) South Carolina S. C. Code Ann. § 16-3-655(2) (1985)

16 Years

Alabama Ala. Code §§ 13A-6-62(a)(1), 13A-6-70(c)(1) (1994) Alaska Alaska Stat. § 11.41.436(a)(1) (1996) Arkansas Ark. Code Ann. §§ 5-14-106(a), 5-14-107(a) (1997) Connecticut Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-71(a)(1) (1995) Delaware Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, § 773(2) (1995) District of Columbia D. C. Code §§ 22-4101(3), 22-4108 (1996) Georgia Ga. Code Ann. § 16-6-3(a) (1996) Indiana 1998 Ind. Acts § 8, p. 774 Iowa Iowa Code § 709.4(2) (1987), as amended by 1994 Iowa Acts p. 290 Kansas Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-3504(a)(1) (1995) Kentucky Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 510.020(3)(a), 510.060(1)(b) (Lexis 1990) Maine Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 17-A, § 254(1) (1983), as amended by 1995 Me. Laws p. 123 Maryland Md. Ann. Code, Art. 27, §§ 464B(a)(4), (5), 464C(a)(2), (3) (1996) Massachusetts Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 265, § 23 (1992) Michigan Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520d(1)(a) (1991), as amended by 1996 Mich. Pub. Acts p. 393 Minnesota Minn. Stat. § 609.344.1(b) (1996) Montana Mont. Code Ann. §§ 45-5-501(1)(b)(iii), 45-5-503(3)(a) (1995) Nebraska Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-319(1) (1994 Cum. Supp.) Nevada Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 200.364(3), 200.368 (1997) New Hampshire N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 632-A:3(II) (1986) New Jersey N. J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:14-2(c)(5) (West 1995) North Carolina N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 14-27.7A (1998 Cum. Supp.) Ohio Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2907.04(A) (Lexis 1996) Oklahoma Okla. Stat., Tit. 21, § 1111(A)(1) (1983), as amended by 1995 Okla. Sess. Laws ch. 22, § 1, p. 119 Pennsylvania 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3122.1, added by 1995 Pa. Laws 985, § 5, p. 987 Rhode Island R. I. Gen. Laws § 11-37-6 (1994) South Dakota S. D. Codified Laws § 22-22-1(5) (1998) Utah 1983 Utah Laws ch. 88, § 16 Vermont Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 13, § 3252(a)(3) (1998) Washington Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.079 (1994) West Virginia W. Va. Code Ann. §§ 61-8B-2(c)(1), 61-8B-5(a)(2) (Lexis 1997) Wyoming Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-304(a)(i) (1997)

*157617 Years

Illinois Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 720, §§ 5/12-15(b)-(c), 5/12-16(d) (West 1996) Louisiana La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:80(A)(1) (West 1986), as amended by 1995 La. Acts no. 241, p. 670 Missouri Mo. Rev. Stat. § 566.034 (1994) New Mexico N. M. Stat. Ann. § 30-9-11(F), as amended by 1995 N. M. Laws ch. 159, p. 1414 New York N. Y. Penal Law Ann. §§ 130.05(3)(a), 130.20(1), 130.25(2) (West 1998) Texas Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 22.011(a)(2), (c)(1) (West 1994)

18 Years

Arizona Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-1405(A) (1989) California Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 261.5(a) (West Supp. 1998) Florida Fla. Stat. § 794.05(1) (1991) Idaho Idaho Code Ann. § 18-6101(1) (Supp. 1996) Mississippi Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-67 (Supp. 1993) North Dakota N. D. Cent. Code Ann. § 12.1-20-05 (Supp. 1983); § 14-10-01 (1997) Oregon Ore. Rev. Stat. §§ 163.315(1), 163.435(1), 163.445(1) (1997) Tennessee Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-506(a) (Supp. 1996) Virginia Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-371 (1996) Wisconsin Wis. Stat. §§ 948.01(1), 948.09 (1993-1994)

Justice KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

*257The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA or Act), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), increases the sentences of certain federal defendants who have three prior convictions "for a violent felony," including "burglary, arson, or extortion." To determine whether a past conviction is for one of those crimes, courts use what has become known as the "categorical approach": They compare the elements of the statute forming the basis of the defendant's conviction with the elements of the "generic" crime-i.e., the offense as commonly understood. The prior conviction qualifies as an ACCA predicate only if the statute's elements are the same as, or narrower than, those of the generic offense.

We have previously approved a variant of this method-labeled (not very inventively) the "modified categorical approach"-when a prior conviction is for violating a so-called "divisible statute." That kind of statute sets out one or more elements of the offense in the alternative-for example, stating that burglary involves entry into a building or an automobile. If one alternative (say, a building) matches an element in the generic offense, but the other (say, an automobile) does not, the modified categorical approach permits sentencing courts to consult a limited class of documents, such as indictments and jury instructions, to determine which alternative formed the basis of the defendant's prior conviction. The court can then do what the categorical approach demands: compare the elements of the crime of conviction (including the alternative element used in the case) with the elements of the generic crime.

*258This case presents the question whether sentencing courts may also consult those additional documents when a defendant was convicted under an "indivisible" statute-i.e., one not containing alternative elements-that criminalizes a broader swath of conduct than the relevant generic offense. That would enable a court to decide, based on information about a case's underlying facts, that the defendant's prior conviction qualifies as an ACCA predicate even though the elements *2282of the crime fail to satisfy our categorical test. Because that result would contravene our prior decisions and the principles underlying them, we hold that sentencing courts may not apply the modified categorical approach when the crime of which the defendant was convicted has a single, indivisible set of elements.

I

Petitioner Michael Descamps was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). That unadorned offense carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The Government, however, sought an enhanced sentence under ACCA, based on Descamps' prior state convictions for burglary, robbery, and felony harassment.

ACCA prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years for a person who violates § 922(g) and "has three previous convictions ... for a violent felony or a serious drug offense." § 924(e)(1). The Act defines a "violent felony" to mean any felony, whether state or federal, that "has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another," or that "is burglary, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another." § 924(e)(2)(B).

Descamps argued that his prior burglary conviction could not count as an ACCA predicate offense under our categorical approach. He had pleaded guilty to violating California Penal Code Ann. § 459 (West 2010), which provides that a "person *259who enters" certain locations "with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary." That statute does not require the entry to have been unlawful in the way most burglary laws do. Whereas burglary statutes generally demand breaking and entering or similar conduct, California's does not: It covers, for example, a shoplifter who enters a store, like any customer, during normal business hours. See People v. Barry, 94 Cal. 481, 483-484, 29 P. 1026, 1026-1027 (1892). In sweeping so widely, the state law goes beyond the normal, "generic" definition of burglary. According to Descamps, that asymmetry of offense elements precluded his conviction under § 459 from serving as an ACCA predicate, whether or not his own burglary involved an unlawful entry that could have satisfied the requirements of the generic crime.

The District Court disagreed. According to the court, our modified categorical approach permitted it to examine certain documents, including the record of the plea colloquy, to discover whether Descamps had "admitted the elements of a generic burglary" when entering his plea. App. 50a. And that transcript, the court ruled, showed that Descamps had done so. At the plea hearing, the prosecutor proffered that the crime " ' involve[d] the breaking and entering of a grocery store,' " and Descamps failed to object to that statement. Ibid. The plea proceedings, the District Court thought, thus established that Descamps' prior conviction qualified as a generic burglary (and so as a "violent felony") under ACCA. Applying the requisite penalty enhancement, the court sentenced Descamps to 262 months in prison-more than twice the term he would otherwise have received.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, relying on its recently issued decision in United States v. Aguila-Montes de Oca, 655 F.3d 915 (2011) (en banc) (per curiam ). There, a divided en banc court took much the same view of the modified categorical approach as had the District Court in this case. The en banc court held that when a sentencing *260court considers a conviction under § 459 -or *2283any other statute that is "categorically broader than the generic offense"-the court may scrutinize certain documents to determine the factual basis of the conviction. See id., at 940. Applying that approach, the Court of Appeals here found that Descamps' plea, as revealed in the colloquy, "rested on facts that satisfy the elements of the generic definition of burglary." 466 Fed.Appx. 563, 565 (2012).

We granted certiorari, 567 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 90, 183 L.Ed.2d 730 (2012), to resolve a Circuit split on whether the modified categorical approach applies to statutes like § 459 that contain a single, "indivisible" set of elements sweeping more broadly than the corresponding generic offense.1 We hold that it does not, and so reverse.

II

Our caselaw explaining the categorical approach and its "modified" counterpart all but resolves this case. In those decisions, as shown below, the modified approach serves a limited function: It helps effectuate the categorical analysis when a divisible statute, listing potential offense elements in the alternative, renders opaque which element played a part in the defendant's conviction. So understood, the modified approach cannot convert Descamps' conviction under § 459 into an ACCA predicate, because that state law defines burglary not alternatively, but only more broadly than the generic offense.

We begin with Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990), which established the rule for determining when a defendant's prior conviction counts as one of ACCA's enumerated *261predicate offenses (e.g., burglary). Taylor adopted a "formal categorical approach": Sentencing courts may "look only to the statutory definitions"-i.e., the elements-of a defendant's prior offenses, and not "to the particular facts underlying those convictions." Id., at 600, 110 S.Ct. 2143. If the relevant statute has the same elements as the "generic" ACCA crime, then the prior conviction can serve as an ACCA predicate; so too if the statute defines the crime more narrowly, because anyone convicted under that law is "necessarily ... guilty of all the [generic crime's] elements." Id., at 599, 110 S.Ct. 2143. But if the statute sweeps more broadly than the generic crime, a conviction under that law cannot count as an ACCA predicate, even if the defendant actually committed the offense in its generic form. The key, we emphasized, is elements, not facts. So, for example, we held that a defendant can receive an ACCA enhancement for burglary only if he was convicted of a crime having "the basic elements" of generic burglary-i.e., "unlawful or unprivileged entry into, or remaining in, a building or structure, with intent to commit a crime." Ibid . And indeed, we indicated that the very statute at issue here, § 459, does not fit that bill because "California defines 'burglary' so broadly as to include shoplifting." Id., at 591, 110 S.Ct. 2143.

At the same time, Taylor recognized a "narrow range of cases" in which sentencing courts-applying what we would later dub the "modified categorical approach"-*2284may look beyond the statutory elements to "the charging paper and jury instructions" used in a case. Id., at 602, 110 S.Ct. 2143. To explain when courts should resort to that approach, we hypothesized a statute with alternative elements-more particularly, a burglary statute (otherwise conforming to the generic crime) that prohibits "entry of an automobile as well as a building." Ibid. One of those alternatives (a building) corresponds to an element in generic burglary, whereas the other (an automobile) does not. In a typical case brought under the statute, the prosecutor charges one of those two alternatives, *262and the judge instructs the jury accordingly. So if the case involves entry into a building, the jury is "actually required to find all the elements of generic burglary," as the categorical approach demands. Ibid. But the statute alone does not disclose whether that has occurred. Because the statute is "divisible"-i.e., comprises multiple, alternative versions of the crime-a later sentencing court cannot tell, without reviewing something more, if the defendant's conviction was for the generic (building) or non-generic (automobile) form of burglary. Hence Taylor permitted sentencing courts, as a tool for implementing the categorical approach, to examine a limited class of documents to determine which of a statute's alternative elements formed the basis of the defendant's prior conviction.

In Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005), the hypothetical we posited in Taylor became real: We confronted a Massachusetts burglary statute covering entries into "boats and cars" as well as buildings. 544 U.S., at 17, 125 S.Ct. 1254. The defendant there pleaded guilty to violating the statute, and we first confirmed that Taylor 's categorical approach applies not just to jury verdicts, but also to plea agreements. That meant, we held, that a conviction based on a guilty plea can qualify as an ACCA predicate only if the defendant "necessarily admitted [the] elements of the generic offense." Id., at 26, 125 S.Ct. 1254. But as we had anticipated in Taylor, the divisible nature of the Massachusetts burglary statute confounded that inquiry: No one could know, just from looking at the statute, which version of the offense Shepard was convicted of. Accordingly, we again authorized sentencing courts to scrutinize a restricted set of materials-here, "the terms of a plea agreement or transcript of colloquy between judge and defendant"-to determine if the defendant had pleaded guilty to entering a building or, alternatively, a car or boat. Ibid. Yet we again underscored the narrow scope of that review: It was not to determine "what the defendant and state judge must have understood as the factual basis of the *263prior plea," but only to assess whether the plea was to the version of the crime in the Massachusetts statute (burglary of a building) corresponding to the generic offense. Id., at 25-26, 125 S.Ct. 1254 (plurality opinion).

Two more recent decisions have further emphasized the elements-based rationale-applicable only to divisible statutes-for examining documents like an indictment or plea agreement. In Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29, 129 S.Ct. 2294, 174 L.Ed.2d 22 (2009), we discussed another Massachusetts statute, this one prohibiting " 'Breaking and Entering at Night' " in any of four alternative places: a "building, ship, vessel, or vehicle." Id., at 35, 129 S.Ct. 2294. We recognized that when a statute so "refer[s] to several different crimes," not all of which qualify as an ACCA predicate, a court must determine which crime formed the basis of the defendant's conviction. Ibid. That is why, we explained, Taylor and Shepard developed the modified categorical *2285approach. By reviewing the extra-statutory materials approved in those cases, courts could discover "which statutory phrase," contained within a statute listing "several different" crimes, "covered a prior conviction." 557 U.S., at 41, 129 S.Ct. 2294. And a year later, we repeated that understanding of when and why courts can resort to those documents: "[T]he 'modified categorical approach' that we have approved permits a court to determine which statutory phrase was the basis for the conviction." Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133, 144, 130 S.Ct. 1265, 176 L.Ed.2d 1 (2010) (citation omitted).

Applied in that way-which is the only way we have ever allowed-the modified approach merely helps implement the categorical approach when a defendant was convicted of violating a divisible statute. The modified approach thus acts not as an exception, but instead as a tool. It retains the categorical approach's central feature: a focus on the elements, rather than the facts, of a crime. And it preserves the categorical approach's basic method: comparing those elements with the generic offense's. All the modified approach adds is a mechanism for making that comparison *264when a statute lists multiple, alternative elements, and so effectively creates "several different ... crimes." Nijhawan, 557 U.S., at 41, 129 S.Ct. 2294. If at least one, but not all of those crimes matches the generic version, a court needs a way to find out which the defendant was convicted of. That is the job, as we have always understood it, of the modified approach: to identify, from among several alternatives, the crime of conviction so that the court can compare it to the generic offense.2

The modified approach thus has no role to play in this case. The dispute here does not concern any list of alternative elements. Rather, it involves a simple discrepancy between generic burglary and the crime established in § 459. The former requires an unlawful entry along the lines of breaking and entering. See 3 W. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 21.1(a) (2d ed. 2003) (hereinafter LaFave). The latter does not, and indeed covers simple shoplifting, as even the Government *265acknowledges. See Brief for United States 38; Barry, 94 Cal., at 483-484, 29 P., at 1026-1027. In Taylor 's words, then, § 459"define[s] burglary more broadly" than the generic offense. 495 U.S., at 599, 110 S.Ct. 2143. And because that is true-because California, *2286to get a conviction, need not prove that Descamps broke and entered-a § 459 violation cannot serve as an ACCA predicate. Whether Descamps did break and enter makes no difference. And likewise, whether he ever admitted to breaking and entering is irrelevant. Our decisions authorize review of the plea colloquy or other approved extra-statutory documents only when a statute defines burglary not (as here) overbroadly, but instead alternatively, with one statutory phrase corresponding to the generic crime and another not. In that circumstance, a court may look to the additional documents to determine which of the statutory offenses (generic or non-generic) formed the basis of the defendant's conviction. But here no uncertainty of that kind exists, and so the categorical approach needs no help from its modified partner. We know Descamps' crime of conviction, and it does not correspond to the relevant generic offense. Under our prior decisions, the inquiry is over.

III

The Court of Appeals took a different view. Dismissing everything we have said on the subject as "lack[ing] conclusive weight," the Ninth Circuit held in Aguila-Montes that the modified categorical approach could turn a conviction under any statute into an ACCA predicate offense. 655 F.3d, at 931. The statute, like § 459, could contain a single, indivisible set of elements covering far more conduct than the generic crime-and still, a sentencing court could "conside[r] to some degree the factual basis for the defendant's conviction" or, otherwise stated, "the particular acts the defendant committed." Id., at 935-936. More specifically, the court could look to reliable materials (the charging document, jury instructions, plea colloquy, and so forth) to determine *266"what facts" can "confident[ly]" be thought to underlie the defendant's conviction in light of the " prosecutorial theory of the case" and the "facts put forward by the government." Id., at 936-937. It makes no difference, in the Ninth Circuit's view, whether "specific words in the statute" of conviction " ' actually required' " the jury (or judge accepting a plea) "to find a particular generic element." Id., at 936 (quoting Taylor, 495 U.S., at 602, 110 S.Ct. 2143; internal quotation marks omitted).3 *2287That approach-which an objecting judge aptly called "modified factual," 655 F.3d, at 948 (Berzon, J., concurring in judgment)-turns an elements-based inquiry into an *267evidence-based one. It asks not whether "statutory definitions" necessarily require an adjudicator to find the generic offense, but instead whether the prosecutor's case realistically led the adjudicator to make that determination. And it makes examination of extra-statutory documents not a tool used in a "narrow range of cases" to identify the relevant element from a statute with multiple alternatives, but rather a device employed in every case to evaluate the facts that the judge or jury found. By this point, it should be clear that the Ninth Circuit's new way of identifying ACCA predicates has no roots in our precedents. But more: Aguila-Montes subverts those decisions, conflicting with each of the rationales supporting the categorical approach and threatening to undo all its benefits.

A

This Court offered three grounds for establishing our elements-centric, "formal categorical approach." Taylor, 495 U.S., at 600, 110 S.Ct. 2143. First, it comports with ACCA's text and history. Second, it avoids the Sixth Amendment concerns that would arise from sentencing courts' making findings of fact that properly belong to juries. And third, it averts "the practical difficulties and potential unfairness of a factual approach." Id., at 601, 110 S.Ct. 2143. When assessed in light of those three reasons, the Ninth Circuit's ruling strikes out swinging.

Start with the statutory text and history. As we have long recognized, ACCA increases the sentence of a defendant who has three "previous convictions" for a violent felony-not a defendant who has thrice committed such a crime. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) ; see Taylor, 495 U.S., at 600, 110 S.Ct. 2143. That language shows, as Taylor explained, that "Congress intended the sentencing court to look only to the fact that the defendant had been convicted of crimes falling within certain categories, and not to the facts underlying the prior convictions." Ibid. ; see Shepard, 544 U.S., at 19, 125 S.Ct. 1254. If Congress had wanted to increase a sentence based on the facts of a prior offense, it presumably would have said so; other statutes, in other *268contexts, speak in just that way. See Nijhawan, 557 U.S., at 36, 129 S.Ct. 2294 (construing an immigration statute as requiring a " 'circumstance-specific,' not a 'categorical,' " approach). But in ACCA, Taylor found, Congress made a deliberate decision to treat every conviction of a crime in the same manner: During the lengthy debate preceding the statute's enactment, "no one suggested that a particular crime might sometimes count towards enhancement and sometimes not, depending on the facts of the case." 495 U.S., at 601, 110 S.Ct. 2143. Congress instead meant ACCA to function as an on-off switch, directing that a prior crime would qualify as a predicate offense in all cases or in none.

The Ninth Circuit's approach runs headlong into that congressional choice. Instead of reviewing documents like an indictment or plea colloquy only to determine "which statutory phrase was the basis for the conviction," the Ninth Circuit looks to those materials to discover what the defendant actually did. Johnson, 559 U.S., at 144, 130 S.Ct. 1265. This case demonstrates the point. Descamps was not convicted of generic burglary, because (as the Government agrees) § 459 does not contain that crime's required unlawful-*2288entry element. See Brief for United States 38, 43-44. At most, the colloquy showed that Descamps committed generic burglary, and so hypothetically could have been convicted under a law criminalizing that conduct. But that is just what we said, in Taylor and elsewhere, is not enough. See 495 U.S., at 600, 110 S.Ct. 2143 ; Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. ----, ----, 130 S.Ct. 2577, 2586, 177 L.Ed.2d 68 (2010) (rejecting such a " 'hypothetical approach' " given a similar statute's directive to "look to the conviction itself," rather than "to what might have or could have been charged"). And the necessary result of the Ninth Circuit's method is exactly the differential treatment we thought Congress, in enacting ACCA, took care to prevent. In the two years since Aguila-Montes, the Ninth Circuit has treated some, but not other, convictions under § 459 as ACCA predicates, based on minor variations in the cases' plea documents. Compare, *269e.g., 466 Fed.Appx., at 565 (Descamps' § 459 conviction counts as generic burglary), with 655 F.3d, at 946 (Aguila-Montes' does not).

Similarly, consider (though Aguila-Montes did not) the categorical approach's Sixth Amendment underpinnings. We have held that "[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Under ACCA, the court's finding of a predicate offense indisputably increases the maximum penalty. Accordingly, that finding would (at the least) raise serious Sixth Amendment concerns if it went beyond merely identifying a prior conviction. Those concerns, we recognized in Shepard, counsel against allowing a sentencing court to "make a disputed" determination "about what the defendant and state judge must have understood as the factual basis of the prior plea," or what the jury in a prior trial must have accepted as the theory of the crime. 544 U.S., at 25, 125 S.Ct. 1254 (plurality opinion); see id., at 28, 125 S.Ct. 1254 (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (stating that such a finding would "giv[e] rise to constitutional error, not doubt"). Hence our insistence on the categorical approach.

Yet again, the Ninth Circuit's ruling flouts our reasoning-here, by extending judicial factfinding beyond the recognition of a prior conviction. Our modified categorical approach merely assists the sentencing court in identifying the defendant's crime of conviction, as we have held the Sixth Amendment permits. But the Ninth Circuit's reworking authorizes the court to try to discern what a trial showed, or a plea proceeding revealed, about the defendant's underlying conduct. See Aguila-Montes, 655 F.3d, at 937. And there's the constitutional rub. The Sixth Amendment contemplates that a jury-not a sentencing court-will find such facts, unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt. And the only facts the court can be sure the jury so found are those *270constituting elements of the offense-as distinct from amplifying but legally extraneous circumstances. See, e.g., Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 817, 119 S.Ct. 1707, 143 L.Ed.2d 985 (1999). Similarly, as Shepard indicated, when a defendant pleads guilty to a crime, he waives his right to a jury determination of only that offense's elements; whatever he says, or fails to say, about superfluous facts cannot license a later sentencing court to impose extra punishment. See 544 U.S., at 24-26, 125 S.Ct. 1254 (plurality opinion). So when the District Court here enhanced Descamps' sentence, based on *2289his supposed acquiescence to a prosecutorial statement (that he "broke and entered") irrelevant to the crime charged, the court did just what we have said it cannot: rely on its own finding about a non-elemental fact to increase a defendant's maximum sentence.

Finally, the Ninth Circuit's decision creates the same "daunting" difficulties and inequities that first encouraged us to adopt the categorical approach. Taylor, 495 U.S., at 601-602, 110 S.Ct. 2143. In case after case, sentencing courts following Aguila-Montes would have to expend resources examining (often aged) documents for evidence that a defendant admitted in a plea colloquy, or a prosecutor showed at trial, facts that, although unnecessary to the crime of conviction, satisfy an element of the relevant generic offense. The meaning of those documents will often be uncertain. And the statements of fact in them may be downright wrong. A defendant, after all, often has little incentive to contest facts that are not elements of the charged offense-and may have good reason not to. At trial, extraneous facts and arguments may confuse the jury. (Indeed, the court may prohibit them for that reason.) And during plea hearings, the defendant may not wish to irk the prosecutor or court by squabbling about superfluous factual allegations. In this case, for example, Descamps may have let the prosecutor's statement go by because it was irrelevant to the proceedings. He likely was not thinking about the possibility that his silence could come *271back to haunt him in an ACCA sentencing 30 years in the future. (Actually, he could not have been thinking that thought: ACCA was not even on the books at the time of Descamps' burglary conviction.)

Still worse, the Aguila-Montes approach will deprive some defendants of the benefits of their negotiated plea deals. Assume (as happens every day) that a defendant surrenders his right to trial in exchange for the government's agreement that he plead guilty to a less serious crime, whose elements do not match an ACCA offense. Under the Ninth Circuit's view, a later sentencing court could still treat the defendant as though he had pleaded to an ACCA predicate, based on legally extraneous statements found in the old record. Taylor recognized the problem: "[I]f a guilty plea to a lesser, nonburglary offense was the result of a plea bargain," the Court stated, "it would seem unfair to impose a sentence enhancement as if the defendant had pleaded guilty" to generic burglary. 495 U.S., at 601-602, 110 S.Ct. 2143. That way of proceeding, on top of everything else, would allow a later sentencing court to rewrite the parties' bargain.

B

The Ninth Circuit defended its (excessively) modified approach by denying any real distinction between divisible and indivisible statutes extending further than the generic offense. "The only conceptual difference," the court reasoned, "is that [a divisible statute] creates an explicitly finite list of possible means of commission, while [an indivisible one] creates an implied list of every means of commission that otherwise fits the definition of a given crime." Aguila-Montes, 655 F.3d, at 927. For example, an indivisible statute "requir[ing] use of a 'weapon' is not meaningfully different"-or so says the Ninth Circuit-"from a statute that simply lists every kind of weapon in existence ... ('gun, axe, sword, baton, slingshot, knife, machete, bat,' and so on)." Ibid. In a similar way, every indivisible statute can be imaginatively *272reconstructed as a divisible one. And if that is true, the Ninth Circuit asks, why limit the modified categorical *2290approach only to explicitly divisible statutes?

The simple answer is: Because only divisible statutes enable a sentencing court to conclude that a jury (or judge at a plea hearing) has convicted the defendant of every element of the generic crime. A prosecutor charging a violation of a divisible statute must generally select the relevant element from its list of alternatives. See, e.g., The Confiscation Cases, 20 Wall. 92, 104, 22 L.Ed. 320 (1874) ("[A]n indictment or a criminal information which charges the person accused, in the disjunctive, with being guilty of one or of another of several offences, would be destitute of the necessary certainty, and would be wholly insufficient").4 And the jury, as instructions in the case will make clear, must then find that element, unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt. So assume, along the lines of the Ninth Circuit's example, that a statute criminalizes assault with any of eight specified weapons; and suppose further, as the Ninth Circuit did, that only assault with a gun counts as an ACCA offense. A later sentencing court need only check the charging documents and instructions ("Do they refer to a gun or something else?") to determine whether in convicting a defendant under that divisible statute, the jury necessarily found that he committed the ACCA-qualifying crime.

None of that is true of an overbroad, indivisible statute. A sentencing court, to be sure, can hypothetically reconceive such a statute in divisible terms. So, as Aguila-Montes reveals, *273a court blessed with sufficient time and imagination could devise a laundry list of potential "weapons"-not just the eight the Ninth Circuit mentioned, but also (for starters) grenades, pipe bombs, spears, tire irons, BB guns, nunchucks, and crossbows. But the thing about hypothetical lists is that they are, well, hypothetical. As long as the statute itself requires only an indeterminate "weapon," that is all the indictment must (or is likely to) allege and all the jury instructions must (or are likely to) mention. And most important, that is all the jury must find to convict the defendant. The jurors need not all agree on whether the defendant used a gun or a knife or a tire iron (or any other particular weapon that might appear in an imagined divisible statute), because the actual statute requires the jury to find only a "weapon." And even if in many cases, the jury could have readily reached consensus on the weapon used, a later sentencing court cannot supply that missing judgment. Whatever the underlying facts or the evidence presented, the defendant still would not have been convicted, in the deliberate and considered way the Constitution guarantees, of an offense with the same (or narrower) elements as the supposed generic crime (assault with a gun).

Indeed, accepting the Ninth Circuit's contrary reasoning would altogether collapse the distinction between a categorical and a fact-specific approach. After all, the Ninth Circuit's "weapons" example is just the tip of the iceberg: Courts can go much further in reconceiving indivisible statutes as impliedly divisible ones. In fact, every element of every statute can be imaginatively transformed as the Ninth *2291Circuit suggests-so that every crime is seen as containing an infinite number of sub-crimes corresponding to "all the possible ways an individual can commit" it. Aguila-Montes, 655 F.3d, at 927. (Think: Professor Plum, in the ballroom, with the candlestick?; Colonel Mustard, in the conservatory, with the rope, on a snowy day, to cover up his affair with Mrs. Peacock?) If a sentencing court, as the Ninth Circuit *274holds, can compare each of those "implied ... means of commission" to the generic ACCA offense, ibid. (emphasis deleted), then the categorical approach is at an end. At that point, the court is merely asking whether a particular set of facts leading to a conviction conforms to a generic ACCA offense. And that is what we have expressly and repeatedly forbidden. Courts may modify the categorical approach to accommodate alternative "statutory definitions." Ibid. ; cf. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 512 U.S. 218, 225, 114 S.Ct. 2223, 129 L.Ed.2d 182 (1994) (" ' [T]o modify' means to change moderately or in minor fashion"). They may not, by pretending that every fact pattern is an "implied" statutory definition, Aguila-Montes, 655 F.3d, at 927, convert that approach into its opposite.

IV

The Government tries to distance itself from the Ninth Circuit by offering a purportedly narrower theory-that although an indivisible statute that is "truly missing" an element of the generic offense cannot give rise to an ACCA conviction, California's burglary law can do so because it merely "contains a broader version of the [generic] element of unlawfulness of entry." Brief for United States 11-12. The Government's argument proceeds in three steps. It begins from the premise that sentencing courts applying ACCA should consider not only the statute defining a prior crime but also any judicial interpretations of it. Next, the Government points to a California decision holding (not surprisingly) that a defendant cannot "burglariz[e] his own home"; the case's reasoning, the Government notes, is that § 459 (though not saying so explicitly) requires "an entry which invades a possessory right." People v. Gauze, 15 Cal.3d 709, 713-716, 125 Cal.Rptr. 773, 542 P.2d 1365, 1367-1368 (1975). Given that precedent, the Government contends, § 459 includes a kind of "unlawful entry" element, although it is broader than the generic crime's analogous requirement. Finally, *275the Government asserts that sentencing courts may use the modified approach "to determine whether a particular defendant's conviction under" such an overbroad statute actually "was for [the] generic" crime. Brief for United States 11.

Although elaborately developed in the Government's brief, this argument's first two steps turn out to be sideshows. We may reserve the question whether, in determining a crime's elements, a sentencing court should take account not only of the relevant statute's text, but of judicial rulings interpreting it. And we may assume, as the Government insists, that California caselaw treats § 459 as including an element of entry "invading a possessory right"-although, truth be told, we find the state decisions on that score contradictory and confusing.5 Even on those assumptions, *2292§ 459's elements do not come into line with generic burglary's. As the Government concedes, almost every entry onto another's property with intent to steal-including, for example, a shoplifter's walking into an open store-"invades a possessory right" under § 459. See Brief for United States 38; Gauze, 15 Cal.3d, at 714, 125 Cal.Rptr. 773, 542 P.2d, at 1367. By contrast, generic burglary's unlawful-entry element excludes any case in which a person enters premises open to the public, no matter his intent; the generic crime requires breaking and entering or similar unlawful activity. See Brief for United States 38; LaFave § 21.1(a). So everything rests on the Government's *276third point: that this mismatch does not preclude applying the modified categorical approach, because it results not from a missing element but instead from an element's overbreadth.

But for starters, we see no principled way to make that distinction. Most overbroad statutes can also be characterized as missing an element; and most statutes missing an element can also be labeled overbroad. Here is the only conclusion in Aguila-Montes we agree with: "[I]t is difficult, if not impossible" to determine which is which. 655 F.3d, at 925. The example that court gave was as follows: A statute of conviction punishes possession of pornography, but a federal law carries a sentence enhancement for possession of child pornography. Is the statute of conviction overbroad because it includes both adult and child pornography; or is that law instead missing the element of involvement of minors? The same name game can be played with § 459. The Government labors mightily to turn what it fears looks like a missing-element statute into an overbroad statute through the incorporation of judicial decisions. But even putting those decisions aside, the Government might have described § 459 as merely having an overbroad element because "entry" includes both the lawful and the unlawful kind. And conversely, Descamps could claim that even as judicially interpreted, § 459 is entirely missing generic burglary's element of breaking and entering or similar unlawful conduct. All is in the eye of the beholder, and prone to endless manipulation.

In any event, and more fundamentally, we see no reason why the Government's distinction should matter. Whether the statute of conviction has an overbroad or missing element, the problem is the same: Because of the mismatch in elements, a person convicted under that statute is never convicted of the generic crime. In this case, for example, Descamps was not convicted of generic burglary because § 459, whether viewed as missing an element or containing an overbroad *277one, does not require breaking and entering. So every reason we have given-textual, constitutional, and practical-for rejecting the Ninth Circuit's proposed approach applies to the Government's as well. See supra, at 2287 - 2290. At bottom, the Government wants the same thing as the Ninth Circuit (if nominally in a few fewer cases): It too wishes a sentencing court to look beyond the elements to the evidence or, otherwise said, to explore whether a person convicted of one crime could also have been convicted of another, more serious offense. But that circumstance-specific review is just what the categorical approach precludes. And as we have explained, we adopted the modified approach to help implement *2293the categorical inquiry, not to undermine it.

V

Descamps may (or may not) have broken and entered, and so committed generic burglary. But § 459 -the crime of which he was convicted-does not require the factfinder (whether jury or judge) to make that determination. Because generic unlawful entry is not an element, or an alternative element, of § 459, a conviction under that statute is never for generic burglary. And that decides this case in Descamps' favor; the District Court should not have enhanced his sentence under ACCA.6 That court and the Ninth Circuit erred in invoking the modified categorical approach to look behind Descamps' conviction in search of *278record evidence that he actually committed the generic offense. The modified approach does not authorize a sentencing court to substitute such a facts-based inquiry for an elements-based one. A court may use the modified approach only to determine which alternative element in a divisible statute formed the basis of the defendant's conviction. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

It is so ordered.

Justice KENNEDY, concurring.

As the Court explains, this case concerns earlier convictions under state statutes classified by cases in the Courts of Appeals, and now in today's opinion for the Court, as "indivisible." See, e.g., United States v. Aguila-Montes de Oca, 655 F.3d 915 (C.A.9 2011) (en banc) (per curiam ); United States v. Beardsley, 691 F.3d 252 (C.A.2 2012). This category is used to describe a class of criminal statutes that are drafted with a single set of elements that are broader than those of the generic definition of the corresponding crime enumerated in the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Just one of the substantial concerns that the Court is correct to consider is that, in the regular course of the criminal process, convictions may be entered, often by guilty pleas, when either the attorney or the client, or both, have given no consideration to possible later consequences under ACCA. See ante, at 2289 - 2290. As a result, certain facts in the documents approved for judicial examination in Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005), may go uncontested because they do not alter the sentencing consequences of the crime, even though their effect is to require a later enhancement under ACCA. This significant risk of failing to consider the full consequences of the plea and conviction is troubling.

*279Balanced against this, as Justice ALITO indicates, is that the dichotomy between divisible and indivisible state criminal statutes is not all that clear. See post, at 2301 - 2302 (dissenting opinion). The effect of today's decision, moreover, is that an unspecified number, but likely a large number, of state criminal statutes that are indivisible but that often do reach serious crimes otherwise subject to ACCA's provisions, *2294now must be amended by state legislatures. Otherwise, they will not meet federal requirements even though they would have come within ACCA's terms had the state statute been drafted in a different way. This is an intrusive demand on the States.

On due consideration, the concerns well expressed by the Court persuade me that it reaches the correct result. The disruption to the federal policy underlying ACCA, nevertheless, is troubling and substantial. See post, at 2301 - 2302 (ALITO, J., dissenting). If Congress wishes to pursue its policy in a proper and efficient way without mandating uniformity among the States with respect to their criminal statutes for scores of serious offenses, and without requiring the amendment of any number of federal criminal statutes as well, Congress should act at once. It may then determine whether ACCA's design and structure should be modified to meet the concerns expressed both by the Court and the dissenting opinion.

With these observations, I join the opinion of the Court.

Justice THOMAS, concurring in the judgment.

Petitioner Matthew Descamps was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), which subjected him to a maximum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment. The District Court, however, applied an Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) enhancement with a mandatory minimum of 15 years based in part on Descamps' earlier California conviction for burglary. See § 924(e). The California *280law says that any "person who enters" any of a number of structures "with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary." California Penal Code Ann. § 459 (West 2010). That law does not, on its face, require the jury to determine whether the entry itself was unlawful, a required element of the so-called "generic" offense of burglary that qualifies as an ACCA predicate. See Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 599, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990). The majority holds that a court may not review the underlying facts of Descamps' state crime to determine whether he entered the building unlawfully and, thus, that his burglary conviction may not be used as a predicate offense under ACCA. While I agree with the Court's conclusion, I disagree with its reasoning.

I have previously explained that ACCA runs afoul of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because it allows the judge to "mak[e] a finding that raises [a defendant's] sentence beyond the sentence that could have lawfully been imposed by reference to facts found by the jury or admitted by the defendant." James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192, 231, 127 S.Ct. 1586, 167 L.Ed.2d 532 (2007) (dissenting opinion) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under the logic of Apprendi, a court may not find facts about a prior conviction when such findings increase the statutory maximum. This is so whether a court is determining whether a prior conviction was entered, see 530 U.S., at 520-521, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (THOMAS, J., concurring), or attempting to discern what facts were necessary to a prior conviction. See James, supra , at 231-232, 127 S.Ct. 1586 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). In either case, the court is inappropriately finding a fact that must be submitted to the jury because it "increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum." Apprendi, supra, at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348

In light of the foregoing, it does not matter whether a statute is "divisible" or "indivisible," see ante, at 2278 - 2280, and courts should not have to struggle with the *2295contours of the so-called "modified categorical" approach. Ibid. *281The only reason Descamps' ACCA enhancement is before us is "because this Court has not yet reconsidered Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which draws an exception to the Apprendi line of cases for judicial factfinding that concerns a defendant's prior convictions." Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 27, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005) (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Regardless of the framework adopted, judicial factfinding increases the statutory maximum in violation of the Sixth Amendment. However, because today's opinion at least limits the situations in which courts make factual determinations about prior convictions, I concur in the judgment.

Justice ALITO, dissenting.

The Court holds, on highly technical grounds, that no California burglary conviction qualifies as a burglary conviction under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). This is so, according to the Court, because (1) burglary under California law is broader than so-called "generic burglary"-unlawfully entering or remaining in a building with the intent to commit a crime; (2) the California burglary statute is not "divisible"; and (3) our "modified categorical approach" cannot be used in a case involving an indivisible statute. Even when it is apparent that a California burglary conviction was based on what everyone imagines when the term "burglary" is mentioned-e.g., breaking into a home to steal valuables-that conviction, the Court holds, must be ignored.

I would give ACCA a more practical reading. When it is clear that a defendant necessarily admitted or the jury necessarily found that the defendant committed the elements of generic burglary, the conviction should qualify. Petitioner's burglary conviction meets that requirement, and I would therefore affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.

I

Before petitioner was charged in the case now before us, he had already compiled a criminal record that included convictions *282in Washington State for assault and threatening to kill a judge, and convictions in California for robbery and burglary. See App. 11a-12a; 466 Fed.Appx. 563, 565 (C.A.9 2012). After his release from custody for these earlier crimes, petitioner fired a gun in the direction of a man who supposedly owed him money for methamphetamine, and as a result, he was charged in federal court with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of § 922(g)(1). A jury found him guilty, and the District Court imposed an enhanced sentence under ACCA because he had the requisite number of previous convictions for "a violent felony or a serious drug offense." § 924(e). ACCA defines a "violent felony" to include a "burglary" that is "punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year," § 924(e)(2)(B), and both the District Court and the Court of Appeals found that petitioner's California burglary conviction fit this definition.

While the concept of a conviction for burglary might seem simple, things have not worked out that way under our case law. In Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 599, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990), we held that "burglary" under ACCA means what we called "generic burglary," that is, the "unlawful or unprivileged entry into, or remaining in, a building or structure, with intent to commit a crime." Determining whether a burglary conviction qualifies under this definition is *2296easy if the elements set out in the state statute are the same as or narrower than the elements of generic burglary, see ibid., but what if the state offense is broader? In that event, we have held, a federal court may sometimes apply what we have termed the "modified categorical approach," that is, it may examine some items in the state-court record, including charging documents, jury instructions, and statements made at guilty plea proceedings, to determine if the defendant was actually found to have committed the elements of the generic offense. See Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 20, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005) ; Taylor, supra, at 602, 110 S.Ct. 2143. *283Petitioner argues that his 1978 conviction for burglary under California Penal Code § 459 does not qualify as a burglary conviction for ACCA purposes because of the particular way in which this provision is worded. Section 459 provides that a "person who enters" certain locations " with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary." Cal.Penal Code Ann. § 459 (West 2010). This provision is broader than generic burglary in two respects.

The first, which does not preclude application of the modified categorical approach, concerns the place burglarized. While generic burglary applies only to offenses involving the entry of a building, the California provision also reaches offenses involving the entry of some other locations, see ibid. Under our cases, however, a federal court considering whether to apply ACCA may determine, based on an examination of certain relevant documents, whether the conviction was actually based on the entry of a building and, if it was, may impose an increased sentence. See Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133, 144, 130 S.Ct. 1265, 176 L.Ed.2d 1 (2010) ; Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29, 35, 129 S.Ct. 2294, 174 L.Ed.2d 22 (2009) ; Shepard, supra, at 26, 125 S.Ct. 1254.

The second variation is more consequential. Whereas generic burglary requires an entry that is unlawful or unprivileged, the California statute refers without qualification to "[e]very person who enters." § 459. Petitioner argues, and the Court agrees, that this discrepancy renders the modified categorical approach inapplicable to his California burglary conviction.

II

The Court holds that "sentencing courts may not apply the modified categorical approach when the crime of which the defendant was convicted has a single, indivisible set of elements." Ante, at 2282. Because the Court's holding is based on the distinction between "divisible" and "indivisible" statutes, it is important to identify precisely what this taxonomy means.

*284My understanding is that a statute is divisible, in the sense used by the Court, only if the offense in question includes as separate elements all of the elements of the generic offense. By an element, I understand the Court to mean something on which a jury must agree by the vote required to convict under the law of the applicable jurisdiction. See ante, at 2288 (citing Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 817, 119 S.Ct. 1707, 143 L.Ed.2d 985 (1999) ). And although the Court reserves decision on the question whether a sentencing court may take authoritative judicial decisions into account in identifying the elements of a statute, see ante, at 2291 - 2292 I will assume that a sentencing court may do so. While the elements of a criminal offense are generally set out in the statutory text, courts sometimes find that unmentioned elements are implicit. See, e.g., Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 20, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999) (holding that federal mail fraud, wire *2297fraud, and bank fraud statutes require proof of materiality even though that element is not mentioned in the statutory text). I cannot think of any reason why an authoritative decision of this sort should be ignored, and the Court has certainly not provided any. I therefore proceed on the assumption that a statute is divisible if the offense, as properly construed, has the requisite elements.

The Court's holding that the modified categorical approach may be used only when a statute is divisible in this sense is not required by ACCA or by our prior cases and will cause serious practical problems.

A

Nothing in the text of ACCA mandates the Court's exclusive focus on the elements of an offense. ACCA increases the sentence of a defendant who has "three previous convictions ... for a violent felony," 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (emphasis added), and the Court claims that the word "convictions" mandates a narrow, elements-based inquiry, see ante, at 2287 - 2288. But "[i]n ordinary speech, when it is said that a person was convicted of or for doing something, the 'something' may include facts that go beyond the bare elements of the relevant *285criminal offense." Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. ----, ----, 133 S.Ct. 1678, 1701, 185 L.Ed.2d 727 (2013) (ALITO, J., dissenting).

Nor is an exclusively elements-based inquiry mandated by ACCA's definition of a "violent felony" as "any crime ... that ... is burglary," § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). In drafting that provision, Congress did not say "any crime that has the elements of burglary." Indeed, the fact that Congress referred to "elements" elsewhere in the same subparagraph, see § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) (defining "violent felony" to mean any crime that "has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another" (emphasis added)), but omitted any reference to elements from § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) suggests, if anything, that it did not intend to focus exclusively on elements. Cf. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 566 U.S. ----, ----, 132 S.Ct. 1670, 1682-83, 182 L.Ed.2d 678 (2012).

B

The Court says that our precedents require an elements-based approach and accuses the Court of Appeals of "flout[ing] our reasoning" in Taylor, Shepard, Nijhawan, and Johnson, see ante, at 2283 - 2285, 2288, but that charge is unfounded. In at least three of those cases, the Court thought that the modified categorical approach could be used in relation to statutes that may not have been divisible.

Shepard concerned prior convictions under two Massachusetts burglary statutes that applied not only to the entry of a "building" (as is the case with generic burglary) but also to the entry of a "ship, vessel, or vehicle." Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 266, § 16 (West 2000). See also § 18; 544 U.S., at 17, 125 S.Ct. 1254. And the Shepard Court did not think that this feature of the Massachusetts statutes precluded the application of the modified categorical approach. See id., at 25-26, 125 S.Ct. 1254;ante, at 2283 - 2284. See also Nijhawan, 557 U.S., at 35, 129 S.Ct. 2294 (discussing Shepard ).

In today's decision, the Court assumes that "building" and the other locations enumerated in the Massachusetts *286statutes, such as "vessel," were alternative elements, but that is questionable. It is quite likely that the entry of a building and the entry of a vessel were simply alternative means of satisfying an element. See *2298Commonwealth v. Cabrera, 449 Mass. 825, 827, 874 N.E.2d 654, 657 (2007) ("The elements of breaking and entering in the nighttime with intent to commit a felony are (1) breaking and (2) entering a building, ship, vessel or vehicle belonging to another (3) at night, (4) with the intent to commit a felony"). "[L]egislatures frequently enumerate alternative means of committing a crime without intending to define separate elements or separate crimes." Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 636, 111 S.Ct. 2491, 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991) (plurality). The feature that distinguishes elements and means is the need for juror agreement, see Richardson, supra, at 817, 119 S.Ct. 1707, and therefore in determining whether the entry of a building and the entry of a vessel are elements or means, the critical question is whether a jury would have to agree on the nature of the place that a defendant entered.

A case that we decided earlier this Term illustrates why "building" and "vessel" may have been means and not separate elements. In Lozman v. Riviera Beach, 568 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 735, 184 L.Ed.2d 604 (2013), we were required to determine whether a "floating home" (a buoyant but not very sea-worthy dwelling) was a "vessel." Seven of us thought it was not; two of us thought it might be. Compare id., at ----, 133 S.Ct., at 739, with id., at ----, 133 S.Ct., at 744-45. (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting). Suppose that a defendant in Massachusetts was charged with breaking into a structure like the Lozman floating home. In order to convict, would it be necessary for the jury to agree whether this structure was a "building" or a "vessel"? If some jurors insisted it was a building and others were convinced it was a vessel, would the jury be hung? The Court's answer is "yes." According to the Court, if a defendant had been charged with burglarizing the Lozman floating home and this Court had been sitting as the jury, the defendant would have escaped conviction *287for burglary, no matter how strong the evidence, because the "jury" could not agree on whether he burglarized a building or a vessel.

I have not found a Massachusetts decision squarely on point, but there is surely an argument that the Massachusetts Legislature did not want to demand juror agreement on this question. In other words, there is a strong argument that entry of a "building" and entry of a "vessel" are merely alternative means, not alternative elements. And if that is so, the reasoning in Shepard undermines the Court's argument that the modified categorical approach focuses solely on elements and not on conduct.

Johnson , like Shepard, involved a statute that may have set out alternative means, rather than alternative elements. Under the Florida statute involved in that case, a battery occurs when a person either "1. [a]ctually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or 2. [i]ntentionally causes bodily harm to another person." Fla. Stat. § 784.03(1)(a) (2010). It is a distinct possibility (one not foreclosed by any Florida decision of which I am aware) that a conviction under this provision does not require juror agreement as to whether a defendant firmly touched or lightly struck the victim. Nevertheless, in Johnson, we had no difficulty concluding that the modified categorical approach could be applied.1 See 559 U.S., at 137, 130 S.Ct. 1265.2

*2299*288Far from mandating the Court's approach, these decisions support a practical understanding of the modified categorical approach. Thus, in Shepard, we observed that the factual circumstances of a defendant's prior conviction may be relevant to determining whether it qualifies as a violent felony under ACCA. See 544 U.S., at 20-21, 125 S.Ct. 1254 ("With such material in a pleaded case, a later court could generally tell whether the plea had 'necessarily' rested on the fact identifying the burglary as generic, just as the details of instructions could support that conclusion in the jury case, or the details of a generically limited charging document would do in any sort of case" (emphasis added; citation omitted)); id., at 24, 125 S.Ct. 1254 (plurality opinion) ("Developments in the law since Taylor ... provide a further reason to adhere to the demanding requirement that ... a prior conviction 'necessarily' involved (and a prior plea necessarily admitted) facts equating to generic burglary" (emphasis added)); id., at 25, 125 S.Ct. 1254 (noting that, in the context of a nongeneric burglary statute, unless the charging documents "narro[w] the charge to generic limits, the only certainty of a generic finding lies in jury instructions, or bench-trial findings and rulings, or (in a pleaded case) in the defendant's own admissions or accepted findings of fact confirming the factual basis for a *289valid plea" (emphasis added)). And in Nijhawan, we departed from the categorical approach altogether and instead applied a "circumstance-specific" approach. See 557 U.S., at 36, 38, 129 S.Ct. 2294. If anything, then, Nijhawan undermines the majority's position that rigid adherence to elements is always required.

C

The Court fears that application of the modified categorical approach to statutes such as § 459 would be unfair to defendants, who "often ha[ve] little incentive to contest facts that are not elements of the charged offense" and "may not wish to irk the prosecutor or court by squabbling about superfluous factual allegations."Ante, at 2289. This argument attributes to criminal defendants and their attorneys a degree of timidity that may not be realistic. But in any event, even if a defendant does not think it worthwhile to "squabbl[e]" about insignificant factual allegations, a defendant clearly has an incentive to dispute allegations that may have a bearing on his sentence. And that will *2300often be the case when alternative elements or means suggest different degrees of culpability. Cf. Cal.Penal Code Ann. § 460 (providing that burglary of certain inhabited locations enumerated in § 459 is punishable in the first degree, and that burglary of all other locations is punishable in the second degree).

D

The Court's approach, I must concede, does have one benefit: It provides an extra measure of assurance that a burglary conviction will not be counted as an ACCA predicate unless the defendant, if he went to trial, was actually found by a jury to have committed the elements of the generic offense. But this extra bit of assurance will generally be quite modest at best.

To see why this is so, compare what would happen under an indivisible burglary statute that simply requires entry invading *290a possessory right, and a divisible statute that has the following two alternative elements: (1) entry by trespass and (2) entry by invitation but with an undisclosed criminal intent. Under the former statute, the jury would be required to agree only that the defendant invaded a possessory right when entering the place in question, and therefore it would be possible for the jury to convict even if some jurors thought that the defendant entered by trespassing while others thought that he entered by invitation but with an undisclosed criminal intent. Under the latter statute, by contrast, the jury would have to agree either that he trespassed or that he entered by invitation but with an undisclosed criminal intent.

This requirement of unanimity would be of some practical value only if the evidence in a case pointed to both possibilities, and in a great many cases that will not be so. In cases prosecuted under the California burglary statute, I suspect, the evidence generally points either to a trespassory entry, typically involving breaking into a building or other covered place, or to an entry by invitation but with an undisclosed criminal intent (in many cases, shoplifting). Cases in which the evidence suggests that the defendant might have done either are probably not common. And in cases where there is evidence supporting both theories, the presence of a divisible statute containing alternative elements will not solve the problem: A guilty verdict will not reveal the alternative on which the jury agreed unless the jury was asked to return a special verdict, something that is not generally favored in criminal cases. See 6 LaFave § 24.10(a), at 543-544.

In cases that end with a guilty plea-and most do-the benefit of divisibility is even less. A judge who accepts a guilty plea is typically required to confirm that there is a factual basis for the plea, see 5 id., § 21.4(f), at 835-840 (3d ed. 2007 and Supp. 2011-2012), and the proffer of a factual basis will generally focus exclusively on one of the alternative elements.

*291The Court nevertheless suggests that the extra modicum of assurance provided in cases involving divisible statutes is needed to prevent violations of the Sixth Amendment jury trial right, ante, at 2287 - 2289, but I disagree. So long as a judge applying ACCA is determining, not what the defendant did when the burglary in question was committed, but what the jury in that case necessarily found or what the defendant, in pleading guilty, necessarily admitted, the jury trial right is not infringed. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). When the modified categorical approach is used to decide whether " a jury was actually required to find all the elements of [a] generic [offense]," the defendant has already enjoyed his Sixth Amendment right to a jury determination *2301of those elements. Taylor, 495 U.S., at 602, 110 S.Ct. 2143.

III

While producing very modest benefits at most, the Court's holding will create several serious problems.

A

Determining whether a statute is divisible will often be harder than the Court acknowledges. What I have said about the statutes involved in Shepard and Johnson illustrates this point. The Court assumes that those statutes were divisible, but as I have explained, it is possible that they were not. See supra, at 2297 - 2298.

To determine whether a statute contains alternative elements, as opposed to merely alternative means of satisfying an element, a court called upon to apply ACCA will be required to look beyond the text of the statute, which may be deceptive. Take, for example, Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated § 750.82(1) (West 2004), which criminalizes assault with "a gun, revolver, pistol, knife, iron bar, club, brass knuckles, or other dangerous weapon." The Court seems to assume that a statute like this enumerates alternative elements, ante, at 2290 - 2291, but the Michigan courts have held otherwise.

*292Under Michigan law, the elements of § 750.82(1) are "(1) an assault, (2) with a dangerous weapon, and (3) with the intent to injure or place the victim in reasonable apprehension of an immediate battery." People v. Avant, 235 Mich.App. 499, 505, 597 N.W.2d 864, 869 (1999). Although the statute lists numerous types of weapons, the particular type of weapon is not itself an element that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, the list of weapons in the statute merely enumerates alternative means of committing the crime.3

Even if a federal court applying ACCA discovers a state-court decision holding that a particular fact must be alleged in a charging document, its research is not at an end. Charging documents must generally include factual allegations that go beyond the bare elements of the crime-specifically, at least enough detail to permit the defendant to mount a defense. See 5 LaFave § 19.3(b), at 276. And some jurisdictions require fairly specific factual allegations. See, e.g., N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law Ann. § 200.50 (West 2007) (enumerating detailed requirements for indictment); People v. Swanson, 308 Ill.App.3d 708, 712, 242 Ill.Dec. 351, 721 N.E.2d 630, 633 (1999) (vacating conviction for disorderly conduct for submitting a false police report because information "d [id] not describe with particularity the time, date, or location of the alleged domestic battery and the acts comprising the battery ... [or] the statement that was falsely reported"); Edwards v. State, 379 So.2d 336, 338 (Ala.Crim.App.1979) (it is insufficient for an indictment for robbery to allege the amount of money taken; it "must aver the denomination of the money taken or that the particular denomination is *293unknown to the grand jury"). Thus, the mere fact that state law requires a particular fact to be alleged in a charging document does not mean that this fact must be found by a jury or admitted by the defendant.

The only way to be sure whether particular items are alternative elements or simply alternative means of satisfying an element *2302may be to find cases concerning the correctness of jury instructions that treat the items one way or the other. And such cases may not arise frequently. One of the Court's reasons for adopting the modified categorical approach was to simplify the work of ACCA courts, see Shepard, 544 U.S., at 20, 125 S.Ct. 1254; Taylor, 495 U.S., at 601, 110 S.Ct. 2143, but the Court's holding today will not serve that end.

B

The Court's holding will also frustrate fundamental ACCA objectives. We have repeatedly recognized that Congress enacted ACCA to ensure (1) that violent, dangerous recidivists would be subject to enhanced penalties and (2) that those enhanced penalties would be applied uniformly, regardless of state-law variations. See, e.g., id., at 587-589, 110 S.Ct. 2143. See also id., at 582, 110 S.Ct. 2143 (" '[I]n terms of fundamental fairness, the Act should ensure, to the extent that it is consistent with the prerogatives of the States in defining their own offenses, that the same type of conduct is punishable on the Federal level in all cases' " (quoting S.Rep. No. 98-190, p. 20 (1983))); 495 U.S., at 591, 110 S.Ct. 2143 (rejecting disparate results across states based on label given by State to a particular crime).

The Court's holding will hamper the achievement of these objectives by artificially limiting ACCA's reach and treating similar convictions differently based solely on the vagaries of state law. Defendants convicted of the elements of generic burglary in California will not be subject to ACCA, but defendants who engage in exactly the same behavior in, say, Virginia, will fall within ACCA's reach. See Va.Code Ann. § 18.2-90 (Lexis 2009).

*294I would avoid these problems by applying the modified categorical approach to § 459 -and any other similar burglary statute from another State-and would ask whether the relevant portions of the state record clearly show that the jury necessarily found, or the defendant necessarily admitted, the elements of generic burglary. If the state-court record is inconclusive, then the conviction should not count. But where the record is clear, I see no reason for granting a special dispensation.

IV

When the modified categorical approach is applied to petitioner's conviction, it is clear that he "necessarily admitted"-and therefore was convicted for committing-the elements of generic burglary: the unlawful or unprivileged entry of a building with the intent to commit a crime.

Both the complaint and information alleged that petitioner "unlawfully and feloniously enter[ed]" a building (the "CentroMart") "with the intent to commit theft therein." App. 14a-17a. When the trial court inquired into the factual basis for petitioner's plea, the prosecutor stated that petitioner's crime involved "the breaking and entering of a grocery store." Id ., at 25a. Neither petitioner nor his attorney voiced any objection.4 Ibid. In order to accept petitioner's plea, the trial court was required under California law to ensure that the plea had a factual basis, see *2303Cal.Penal Code Ann. § 1192.5 (1978) ; App. 26a, and we must presume that the plea proceedings were conducted in a regular manner, see *295Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20, 29-30, 113 S.Ct. 517, 121 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992). The unmistakable inference arising from the plea transcript is that the trial judge-quite reasonably-understood petitioner and his attorney to assent to the factual basis provided by the prosecutor. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals concluded that petitioner had admitted and, as a practical matter, was convicted for having committed the elements of generic burglary, and we did not agree to review that fact-bound determination, see 567 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 90, 183 L.Ed.2d 730 (2012) (granting certiorari "limited to Question 1 presented by the petition").

Even if that determination is reviewed, however, the lower courts' conclusion should be sustained. Under the California burglary statute, as interpreted by the State Supreme Court, a defendant must either (a) commit a trespass in entering the location in question or (b) enter in violation of some other possessory right. See People v. Gauze, 15 Cal.3d 709, 713-714, 125 Cal.Rptr. 773, 542 P.2d 1365, 1367 (1975).5

In this case, the judge who accepted petitioner's guilty plea must have relied on petitioner's implicit admission that he "broke" into the store, for if petitioner had admitted only that he entered the store, the judge would not have been able to assess whether he had invaded a possessory right. Nor would an admission to merely "entering" the store have permitted the judge to assess whether petitioner entered with the intent to commit a crime; petitioner's admission to "breaking" was therefore critical to that element, as well. Cf. Black's Law Dictionary 236 (rev. 4th ed. 1968) ("Breaking" denotes the "tearing away or removal of any part of a house or of the locks, latches, or other fastenings intended to *296secure it, or otherwise exerting force to gain an entrance, with the intent to commit a felony").

We have explained that burglary under § 924(e) means "an unlawful or unprivileged entry into, or remaining in, a building or other structure, with intent to commit a crime." Taylor, 495 U.S., at 598, 110 S.Ct. 2143. Based on petitioner's guilty plea and the Shepard documents, it is clear that petitioner necessarily admitted the elements of generic burglary. He unlawfully entered a building with the intent to commit a crime. Accordingly, I would hold that petitioner's conviction under § 459 qualifies as a conviction for "burglary" under § 924(e).

For these reasons, I would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals, and I therefore respectfully dissent.

*32Justice Breyer

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Federal immigration law provides that any “alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission is deportable.” 8 U. S. C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (emphasis added). A related statute defines “aggravated felony” in terms of a set of listed offenses that includes “an offense that . . . involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000.” § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) (emphasis added). See Appendix A, infra. The question before us is whether the italicized language refers to an element of the fraud or deceit “offense” as set forth in the particular fraud or deceit statute defining the offense of which the alien was previously convicted. If so, then in order to determine whether a prior conviction is for the kind of offense described, the immigration judge must look to the criminal fraud or deceit statute to see whether it contains a monetary threshold of $10,000 or more. See Taylor v. United States, 495 U. S. 575 (1990) (so interpreting the Armed Career Criminal Act). We conclude, however, that the italicized language does not refer to an element of the fraud or deceit crime. Rather it refers to the particular circumstances in which an offender committed a (more broadly defined) fraud or deceit crime on a particular occasion.

I

Petitioner, an alien, immigrated to the United States in 1985. In 2002 he was indicted for conspiring to commit mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering. 18 U. S. C. §§371, 1341, 1343, 1344, 1956(h). A jury found him guilty. But because none of these statutes requires a finding of any particular amount of victim loss, the jury made no finding about the amount of the loss. At sentencing petitioner stipulated that the loss exceeded $100 million. The court then imposed a sentence of 41 months in prison and required restitution of $683 million.

*33In 2005 the Government, claiming that petitioner had been convicted of an “aggravated felony,” sought to remove him from the United States. The Immigration Judge found that petitioner’s conviction was for crimes of fraud and deceit; that the sentencing stipulation and restitution order showed that the victims’ loss exceeded $10,000; and that petitioner’s conviction consequently fell within the immigration statute’s “aggravated felony” definition. See 8 U. S. C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), (U) (including within the definition of “aggravated felony” any “attempt or conspiracy to commit” a listed “offense”). The Board of Immigration Appeals agreed. App. to Pet. for Cert. 44a-51a. So did the Third Circuit. 523 F. 3d 387 (2008). The Third Circuit noted that the statutes of conviction were silent as to amounts, but, in its view, the determination of loss amounts for “aggravated felony” purposes “requires an inquiry into the underlying facts of the case.” Id., at 396 (internal quotation marks omitted).

The Courts of Appeals have come to different conclusions as to whether the $10,000 threshold in subparagraph (M)(i) refers to an element of a fraud statute or to the factual circumstances surrounding commission of the crime on a specific occasion. Compare Conteh v. Gonzales, 461 F. 3d 45, 55 (CA1 2006) (fact-based approach); 523 F. 3d 387 (case below) (same); Arguelles-Olivares v. Mukasey, 526 F. 3d 171, 178 (CA5 2008) (same), with Dulal-Whiteway v. United States Dept. of Homeland Security, 501 F. 3d 116, 131 (CA2 2007) (definitional approach); Kawashima v. Mukasey, 530 F. 3d 1111, 1117 (CA9 2008) (same); Obasohan v. United States Atty. Gen., 479 F. 3d 785, 791 (CA11 2007) (same). We granted certiorari to decide the question.

II

The interpretive difficulty before us reflects the linguistic fact that in ordinary speech words such as “crime,” “felony,” “offense,” and the like sometimes refer to a generic crime, *34say, the crime of fraud or theft in general, and sometimes refer to the specific acts in which an offender engaged on a specific occasion, say, the fraud that the defendant planned and executed last month. See Chambers v. United States, 555 U. S. 122, 125 (2009). The question here, as we have said, is whether the italicized statutory words “offense that involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the . . . victims exceeds $10,000” should be interpreted in the first sense (which we shall call “categorical”), i. as referring to a generic crime, or in the second sense (which we shall call “circumstance-specific”), as referring to the specific way in which an offender committed the crime on a specific occasion. If the first, we must look to the statute defining the offense to determine whether it has an appropriate monetary threshold; if the second, we must look to the facts and circumstances underlying an offender’s conviction.

A

The basic argument favoring the first — i. e., the “generic” or “categorical” — interpretation rests upon Taylor, Chambers, and James v. United States, 550 U. S. 192 (2007). Those cases concerned the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), a statute that enhances the sentence imposed upon certain firearm-law offenders who also have three prior convictions for “a violent felony.” 18 U. S. C. § 924(e). See Appendix B, infra. ACCA defines “violent felony” to include, first, felonies with elements that involve the use of physical force against another; second, felonies that amount to “burglary, arson, or extortion” or that involve the use of explosives; and third, felonies that “otherwise involv[e] conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” § 924(e)(2)(B).

In Taylor and James we held that ACCA’s language read naturally uses the word “felony” to refer to a generic crime as generally committed. Chambers, supra, at 125 (discussing Taylor, supra, at 602); James, supra, at 201-202. The *35Court noted that such an interpretation of the statute avoids “the practical difficulty of trying to ascertain” in a later proceeding, “perhaps from a paper record” containing only a citation (say, by number) to a statute and a guilty plea, “whether the [offender’s] prior crime ... did or did not involve,” say, violence. Chambers, supra, at 125.

Thus in James, referring to Taylor, we made clear that courts must use the “categorical method” to determine whether a conviction for “attempted burglary” was a conviction for a crime that, in ACCA’s language, “involve[d] conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). That method required the court to “examine, not the unsuccessful burglary the defendant attempted on a particular occasion, but the generic crime of attempted burglary.” Chambers, supra, at 125 (discussing James, supra, at 204-206).

We also noted that the categorical method is not always easy to apply. That is because sometimes a separately numbered subsection of a criminal statute will refer to several different crimes, each described separately. And it can happen that some of these crimes involve violence while others do not. A single Massachusetts statute section entitled “Breaking and Entering at Night,” for example, criminalizes breaking into a “building, ship, vessel or vehicle.” Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 266, § 16 (West 2006). In such an instance, we have said, a court must determine whether an offender’s prior conviction was for the violent, rather than the nonviolent, break-ins that this single five-word phrase describes (e. g., breaking into a building rather than into a vessel), by examining “the indictment or information and jury instructions,” Taylor, 495 U. S., at 602, or, if a guilty plea is at issue, by examining the plea agreement, plea colloquy, or “some comparable judicial record” of the factual basis for the plea, Shepard v. United States, 544 U. S. 13, 26 (2005).

Petitioner argues that we should interpret the subsection of the “aggravated felony” statute before us as requiring use *36of this same “categorical” approach. He says that the statute’s language, read naturally as in Taylor, refers to a generic kind of crime, not a crime as committed on a particular occasion. He adds that here, as in Taylor, such a reading avoids the practical difficulty of determining the nature of prior conduct from what may be a brief paper record, perhaps noting only a statutory section number and a guilty plea; or, if there is a more extensive record, combing through that record for evidence of underlying conduct. Also, the categorical approach, since it covers only criminal statutes with a relevant monetary threshold, not only provides assurance of a finding on the point, but also assures that the defendant had an opportunity to present evidence about the amount of loss.

B

Despite petitioner’s arguments, we conclude that the “fraud and deceit” provision before us calls for a “circumstance-specific,” not a “categorical,” interpretation. The “aggravated felony” statute of which it is a part differs in general from ACCA, the statute at issue in Taylor. And the “fraud and deceit” provision differs specifically from ACCA’s provisions.

1

Consider, first, ACCA in general. That statute defines the “violent” felonies it covers to include “burglary, arson, or extortion” and “crime[s]” that have “as an element” the use or threatened use of force. 18 U. S. C. §§ 924(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). This language refers directly to generic crimes. The statute, however, contains other, more ambiguous language, covering “crime[s]” that “involv[eJ conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” Ibid. (emphasis added). While this language poses greater interpretive difficulty, the Court held that it too refers to crimes as generically defined. James, supra, at 202.

*37Now compare the “aggravated felony” statute before us. 8 U. S. C. § 1101(a)(43). We concede that it resembles ACC A in certain respects. The “aggravated felony” statute lists several of its “offenses” in language that must refer to generic crimes. Subparagraph (A), for example, lists “murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor.” See, e. g., Estrada-Espinoza v. Mukasey, 546 F. 3d 1147, 1152 (CA9 2008) (en banc) (applying the categorical approach to “sexual abuse”); Singh v. Ashcroft, 383 F. 3d 144, 164 (CA3 2004) (same); Santos v. Gonzales, 436 F. 3d 323, 324 (CA2 2005) (per curiam) (same). Subparagraph (B) lists “illicit trafficking in a controlled substance.” See Gousse v. Ashcroft, 339 F. 3d 91, 95-96 (CA2 2003) (applying categorical approach); Fernandez v. Mukasey, 544 F. 3d 862, 871-872 (CA7 2008) (same); Steele v. Blackman, 236 F. 3d 130, 136 (CA3 2001) (same). And subparagraph (C) lists “illicit trafficking in firearms or destructive devices.” Other sections refer specifically to an “offense described in” a particular section of the Federal Criminal Code. See, e. g., subparagraphs (E), (H), (I), (J), (L).

More importantly, however, the “aggravated felony” statute differs from ACCA in that it lists certain other “offenses” using language that almost certainly does not refer to generic crimes but refers to specific circumstances. For example, subparagraph (P), after referring to “an offense” that amounts to “falsely making, forging, counterfeiting, mutilating, or altering a passport,” adds, “except in the case of a first offense for which the alien . . . committed the offense for the purpose of assisting ... the alien’s spouse, child, or parent... to violate a provision of this chapter.” (Emphasis added.) The language about (for example) “forging . . . passport[s]” may well refer to a generic crime, but the italicized exception cannot possibly refer to a generic crime. That is because there is no such generic crime; there is no criminal statute that contains any such exception. Thus if *38the provision is to have any meaning at all, the exception must refer to the particular circumstances in which an offender committed the crime on a particular occasion. See also subparagraph (N) (similar exception).

The statute has other provisions that contain qualifying language that certainly seems to call for circumstance-specific application. Subparagraph (K)(ii), for example, lists “offense[s]... described in section 2421, 2422, or 2423 of title 18 (relating to transportation for the purpose of prostitution) if committed for commercial advantage.” (Emphasis added.) Of the three specifically listed criminal statutory sections only one subsection (namely, § 2423(d)) says anything about commercial advantage. Thus, unless the “commercial advantage” language calls for circumstance-specific application, the statute’s explicit references to §§2421 and 2422 would be pointless. But see Gertsenshteyn v. United States Dept. of Justice, 544 F. 3d 137, 144-145 (CA2 2008).

Subparagraph (M)(ii) provides yet another example. It refers to an offense “described in section 7201 of title 26 (relating to tax evasion) in which the revenue loss to the Government exceeds $10,000.” (Emphasis added.) There is no offense “described in section 7201 of title 26” that has a specific loss amount as an element. Again, unless the “revenue loss” language calls for circumstance-specific application, the tax-evasion provision would be pointless.

The upshot is that the “aggravated felony” statute, unlike ACCA, contains some language that refers to generic crimes and some language that almost certainly refers to the specific circumstances in which a crime was committed. The question before us then is to which category subparagraph (M)(i) belongs.

2

Subparagraph (M)(i) refers to “an offense that... involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000.” (Emphasis added.) The language of the provision is consistent with a circumstance-specific approach. *39The words “in which” (which modify “offense”) can refer to the conduct involved “m” the commission of the offense of conviction, rather than to the elements of the offense. Moreover, subparagraph (M)(i) appears just prior to subparagraph (M)(ii), the internal revenue provision we have just discussed, and it is identical in structure to that provision. Where, as here, Congress uses similar statutory language and similar statutory structure in two adjoining provisions, it normally intends similar interpretations. IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U. S. 21, 34 (2005).

Moreover, to apply a categorical approach here would leave subparagraph (M)(i) with little, if any, meaningful application. We have found no widely applicable federal fraud statute that contains á relevant monetary loss threshold. See, e. g., 18 U. S. C. §§ 1341 (mail fraud), 1343 (wire fraud), 1344 (bank fraud), 371 (conspiracy to defraud the United States), 666 (theft in federally funded programs), 1028 (fraud in connection with identification documents), 1029 (fraud in connection with access devices), 1030 (fraud in connection with computers), 1347 (health care fraud), and 1348 (securities fraud). Petitioner has found only three federal fraud statutes that do so, and those three contain thresholds not of $10,000, but of $100,000 or $1 million, §§ 668 (theft by fraud of an artwork worth $100,000 or more), 1031(a) (contract fraud against the United States where the contract is worth at least $1 million), and 1039(d) (providing enhanced penalties for fraud in obtaining telephone records, where the scheme involves more than $100,000). Why would Congress intend subparagraph (M)(i) to apply to only these three federal statutes, and then choose a monetary threshold that, on its face, would apply to other, nonexistent statutes as well?

We recognize, as petitioner argues, that Congress might have intended subparagraph (M)(i) to apply almost exclusively to those who violate certain state fraud and deceit statutes. So we have examined state law. See Appendix *40C, infra. We have found, however, that in 1996, when Congress added the $10,000 threshold in subparagraph (M)(i), see Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility-Act § 321(a)(7), 110 Stat. 3009-628, 29 States had no major fraud or deceit statute with any relevant monetary threshold. In 13 of the remaining 21 States, fraud and deceit statutes contain relevant monetary thresholds but with amounts significantly higher than $10,000, leaving only 8 States with statutes in respect to which subparagraph (M)(i)’s $10,000 threshold, as categorically interpreted, would have full effect. We do not believe Congress would have intended (M)(i) to apply in so limited and so haphazard a manner. Cf. United States v. Hayes, 555 U. S. 415, 427 (2009) (reaching similar conclusion for similar reason in respect to a statute referring to crimes involving “domestic violence”).

Petitioner next points to 8 U. S. C. § 1326, which criminalizes illegal entry after removal and imposes a higher maximum sentence when an alien’s removal was “subsequent to a conviction for commission of an aggravated felony.” § 1326(b)(2). Petitioner says that a circumstance-specific approach to subparagraph (M)(i) could create potential constitutional problems in a subsequent criminal prosecution under that statute, because loss amount would not have been found beyond a reasonable doubt in the prior criminal proceeding. The Government, however, stated in its brief and at oral argument that the later jury, during the illegal reentry trial, would have to find loss amount beyond a reasonable doubt, Brief for Respondent 49-50; Tr. of Oral Arg. 39-40, eliminating any constitutional concern. Cf. Hayes, supra, at 426.

We conclude that Congress did not intend subparagraph (M)(i)’s monetary threshold to be applied categorically, i. e., to only those fraud and deceit crimes generically defined to include that threshold. Rather, the monetary threshold applies to the specific circumstances surrounding an offender’s commission of a fraud and deceit crime on a specific occasion.

*41III

Petitioner, as an alternative argument, says that we should nonetheless borrow from Taylor what that case called a “modified categorical approach.” He says that, for reasons of fairness, we should insist that a jury verdict, or a judge-approved equivalent, embody a determination that the loss involved in a prior fraud or deceit conviction amounted to at least $10,000. To determine whether that is so, petitioner says, the subsequent immigration court applying subparagraph (M)(i) should examine only charging documents, jury instructions, and any special jury finding (if one has been requested). If there was a trial but no jury, the subsequent court should examine the equivalent judge-made findings. If there was a guilty plea (and no trial), the subsequent court should examine the written plea documents or the plea colloquy. To authorize any broader examination of the prior proceedings, petitioner says, would impose an unreasonable administrative burden on immigration judges and would unfairly permit him to be deported on the basis of circumstances that were not before judicially determined to have been present and which he may not have had an opportunity, prior to conviction, to dispute.

We agree with petitioner that the statute foresees the use of fundamentally fair procedures, including procedures that give an alien a fair opportunity to dispute a Government claim that a prior conviction involved a fraud with the relevant loss to victims. But we do not agree that fairness requires the evidentiary limitations he proposes.

For one thing, we have found nothing in prior law that so limits the immigration court. Taylor, James, and Shepard, the cases that developed the evidentiary list to which petitioner points, developed that list for a very different purpose, namely, that of determining which statutory phrase (contained within a statutory provision that covers several different generic crimes) covered a prior conviction. See supra, at 34-35; Taylor, 495 U. S., at 602; Shepard, 544 U. S., *42at 26. For another, petitioner’s proposal itself can prove impractical insofar as it requires obtaining from a jury a special verdict on a fact that (given our Part II determination) is not an element of the offense.

Further, a deportation proceeding is a civil proceeding in which the Government does not have to prove its claim “beyond a reasonable doubt.” At the same time the evidence that the Government offers must meet a “clear and convincing” standard. 8 U. S. C. § 1229a(c)(3)(A). And, as the Government points out, the “loss” must “be tied to the specific counts covered by the conviction.” Brief for Respondent 44; see, e. g., Alaka v. Attorney General of United States, 456 F. 3d 88, 107 (CA3 2006) (loss amount must be tethered to offense of conviction; amount cannot be based on acquitted or dismissed counts or general conduct); Knutsen v. Gonzales, 429 F. 3d 733, 739-740 (CA7 2005) (same). And the Government adds that the “sole purpose” of the “aggravated felony” inquiry “is to ascertain the nature of a prior conviction; it is not an invitation to relitigate the conviction itself.” Brief for Respondent 44 (internal quotation marks omitted). Finally, the Board of Immigration Appeals, too, has recognized that immigration judges must assess findings made at sentencing “with an eye to what losses are covered and to the burden of proof employed.” In re Babaisakov, 24 I. & N. Dec. 306, 319 (2007).

These considerations, taken together, mean that petitioner and those in similar circumstances have at least one and possibly two opportunities to contest the amount of loss, the first at the earlier sentencing and the second at the deportation hearing itself. They also mean that, since the Government must show the amount of loss by clear and convincing evidence, uncertainties caused by the passage of time are likely to count in the alien’s favor.

We can find nothing unfair about the Immigration Judge’s having here relied upon earlier sentencing-related material. Petitioner’s own stipulation, produced for sentencing purposes, shows that the conviction involved losses considerably *43greater than $10,000. The court’s restitution order shows the same. In the absence of any conflicting evidence (and petitioner mentions none), this evidence is clear and convincing.

The Court of Appeals concluded that petitioner’s prior federal conviction consequently falls within the scope of subparagraph (M)(i). And we affirm its judgment.

It is so ordered.

APPENDIXES

A

Section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as set forth in 8 U. S. C. § 1101(a)(43), provides:

“The term ‘aggravated felony’ means—

“(A) murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor;

“(B) illicit trafficking in a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of title 21), including a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 924(c) of title 18);

“(C) illicit trafficking in firearms or destructive devices (as defined in section 921 of title 18) or in explosive materials (as defined in section 841(c) of that title);

“(D) an offense described in section 1956 of title 18 (relating to laundering of monetary instruments) or section 1957 of that title (relating to engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specific unlawful activity) if the amount of the funds exceeded $10,000;

“(E) an offense described in—

“(i) section 842(h) or (i) of title 18, or section 844(d), (e), (f), (g), (h), or (i) of that title (relating to explosive materials offenses);

“(ii) section 922(g)(1), (2), (3), (4), or (5), (j), (n), (o), (p), or (r) or 924(b) or (h) of title 18 (relating to firearms offenses); or

“(iii) section 5861 of title 26 (relating to firearms offenses);

*44“(F) a crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of title 18, but not including a purely political offense) for which the term of imprisonment [is] at least one year;

“(G) a theft offense (including receipt of stolen property) or burglary offense for which the term of imprisonment [is] at least one year;

“(H) an offense described in section 875, 876, 877, or 1202 of title 18 (relating to the demand for or receipt of ransom);

“(I) an offense described in section 2251,2251A, or 2252 of title 18 (relating to child pornography);

“(J) an offense described in section 1962 of title 18 (relating to racketeer influenced corrupt organizations), or an offense described in section 1084 (if it is a second or subsequent offense) or 1955 of that title (relating to gambling offenses), for which a sentence of one year imprisonment or more may be imposed;

“(K) an offense that—

“(i) relates to the owning, controlling, managing, or supervising of a prostitution business;

“(ii) is described in section 2421, 2422, or 2423 of title 18 (relating to transportation for the purpose of prostitution) if committed for commercial advantage; or

“(iii) is described in any of sections 1581-1585 or 1588-1591 of title 18 (relating to peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, and trafficking in persons);

“(L) an offense described in—

“(i) section 793 (relating to gathering or transmitting national defense information), 798 (relating to disclosure of classified information), 2153 (relating to sabotage) or 2381 or 2382 (relating to treason) of title 18;

“(ii) section 421 of title 50 (relating to protecting the identity of undercover intelligence agents); or

“(iii) section 421 of title 50 (relating to protecting the identity of undercover agents);

“(M) an offense that—

*45“(i) involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000; or

“(ii) is described in section 7201 of title 26 (relating to tax evasion) in which the revenue loss to the Government exceeds $10,000;

“(N) an offense described in paragraph (1)(A) or (2) of section 1324(a) of this title (relating to alien smuggling), except in the case of a first offense for which the alien has affirmatively shown that the alien committed the offense for the purpose of assisting, abetting, or aiding only the alien’s spouse, child, or parent (and no other individual) to violate a provision of this chapter

“(O) an offense described in section 1325(a) or 1326 of this title committed by an alien who was previously deported on the basis of a conviction for an offense described in another subparagraph of this paragraph;

“(P) an offense (i) which either is falsely making, forging, counterfeiting, mutilating, or altering a passport or instrument in violation of section 1543 of title 18 or is described in section 1546(a) of such title (relating to document fraud) and (ii) for which the term of imprisonment is at least 12 months, except in the case of a first offense for which the alien has affirmatively shown that the alien committed the offense for the purpose of assisting, abetting, or aiding only the alien’s spouse, child, or parent (and no other individual) to violate a provision of this chapter;

“(Q) an offense relating to a failure to appear by a defendant for service of sentence if the underlying offense is punishable by imprisonment for a term of 5 years or more;

“(R) an offense relating to commercial bribery, counterfeiting, forgery, or trafficking in vehicles the identification numbers of which have been altered for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year;

“(S) an offense relating to obstruction of justice, perjury or subornation of perjury, or bribery of a witness, for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year;

*46“(T) an offense relating to a failure to appear before a court pursuant to a court order to answer to or dispose of a charge of a felony for which a sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment or more may be imposed; and

“(U) an attempt or conspiracy to commit an offense described in this paragraph.

“The term applies to an offense described in this paragraph whether in violation of Federal or State law and applies to such an offense in violation of the law of a foreign country for which the term of imprisonment was completed within the previous 15 years. Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any effective date), the term applies regardless of whether the conviction was entered before, on, or after September 30,1996.” (Footnotes omitted.)

B

Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U. S. C. § 924(e), provides:

“(1) In the case of a person who violates section 922(g) of this title and has three previous convictions by any court referred to in section 922(g)(1) of this title for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both, committed on occasions different from one another, such person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than fifteen years, and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not suspend the sentence of, or grant a probationary sentence to, such person with respect to the conviction under section 922(g).

“(2) As used in this subsection—

“(A) the term ‘serious drug offense’ means—

“(i) an offense under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U. S. C. 801 et seq.), the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U. S. C. 951 et seq.), or chapter 705 of title 46, for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed by law; or

“(ii) an offense under State law, involving manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to manu*47facture or distribute, a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U. S. C. 802)), for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed by law;

“(B) the term ‘violent felony’ means any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, or any act of juvenile delinquency involving the use or carrying of a firearm, knife, or destructive device that would be punishable by imprisonment for such term if committed by an adult, that—

“(i) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another; or

“(ii) is burglary, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another; and

“(C) the term ‘conviction’ includes a finding that a person has committed an act of juvenile delinquency involving a violent felony.”

C

We examined state statutes involving fraud or deceit in effect in 1996, when Congress added the $10,000 threshold in subparagraph (M)(i). See Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, § 321(a)(7), 110 Stat. 3009-628. While perhaps questions could be raised about whether certain of the statutes listed below involve “fraud or deceit” as required by subparagraph (M)(i), we give petitioner the benefit of any doubt and treat the statute as relevant.

1

In 29 States plus the District of Columbia, the main statutes in effect in 1996 involving fraud and deceit either did not have any monetary threshold or set a threshold lower than $10,000 even for the most serious grade of the offense. *48 Alabama: see, e. g., Ala. Code §§ 13A-8-2, 13A-8-3, 13A-9-14, 13A-9-14.1,13A-9-46, 13A-9-47,13A-9-73 (1994). Arkansas: see, e. g., Ark. Code Ann. §§5-36-103 (Supp. 1995), 5- 37-203 (1993), 5-37-204, 5-37-207, 5-37-211. California: see, e. g., Cal. Penal Code Ann. §§ 484, 487 (West 1985), 502.7 (West Supp. 1998). District of Columbia: see, e. g., D. C. Code §§22-3821, 22-3823 (1996). Georgia: see, e.g., Ga. Code Ann. §§ 16-8-3, 16-8-12, 16-9-33 (1996). Idaho: see, e. g., Idaho Code §§ 18-2403 (Lexis 1987), 18-2407 (Lexis Supp. 1996). Kentucky: see, e. g., Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 514.040 (Lexis Supp. 1996). Louisiana: see, e. g., La. Stat. Ann. §§ 14:67, 14:67.11, 14:70.1, 14:70.4, 14:71, 14:71.1 (West 1997). Maryland: see, e. g., Md. Ann. Code, Art. 27, §§340, 342, 145, 230A, 230C, 230D (Lexis 1996). Massachusetts: see, e. g., Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 266, §§ 30, 37C (West 1996). Michigan: see, e.g., Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§750.218, 750.271, 750.280, 750.219a, 750.356c (West 1991). Mississippi: see, e. g., Miss. Code Ann. §§ 97-19-21, 97-19-35, 97-19-39, 97-19-71, 97-19-83 (1994). Missouri: see, e. g., Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 570.030, 570.120, 570.130, 570.180 (1994). Montana: see, e. g., Mont. Code Ann. §§45-6-301, 45-6-313, 45-6- 315, 45-6-317 (1995). Nebraska: see, e. g., Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§28-512, 28-518, 28-631 (1995). Nevada: see, e.g., Nev. Rev. Stat. §§205.0832, 205.0835, 205.370, 205.380 (1995). New Hampshire: see, e.g., N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§637:4, 637:11, 638:5, 638:20 (West 1996). North Carolina: see, e. g., N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§14-100, 14-106, 14-113.13 (Lexis 1993). Oklahoma: see, e.g., Okla. Stat., Tit. 21, §§1451 (West 1991), 1462 (West Supp. 1993), 1541.1, 1541.2, 1541.3 (West 1991), 1541.4, 1550.2, 1662, 1663 (West Supp. 1993). Pennsylvania: see, e. g., 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 3903, 3922, 4110,4111 (1983), 4117 (Supp. 2009); but see §4105 (bad check statute amended 1996 to introduce $75,000 threshold). Rhode Island: see, e. g., R. I. Gen. Laws §§ 11-18-6,11-18-7, 11-18-8, 11-18-9, 11-41-4, 11-41-5, 11-41-29 (1994), 11-*4941-30 (Supp. 1999). South Carolina: see, e. g., S. C. Code Ann. § 16-13-240 (2003). South Dakota: see, e. g., S. D. Codified Laws §§ 22-30A-3,22-30A-10 (1988), 22-30A-17 (Supp. 1997). Utah: see, e. g., Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-6-405, 76-6-412, 76-6-521, 76-10-1801 (Lexis 1996). Vermont: see, e. g., Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 13, §§2001, 2002, 2024, 2531, 2582 (1996). Virginia: see, e. g., Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-178, 18.2-95, 18.2-195 (Lexis 1996). Washington: see, e. g., Wash. Rev. Code §§9A.56.020 (1994), 9A.56.030 (Supp. 2005). West Virginia: see, e. g., W. Va. Code Ann. § 61-3-24 (Lexis Supp. 1997). Wisconsin: see, e.g., Wis. Stat. §§943.20, 943.395, 943.41 (1993-1994). Wyoming: see, e. g., Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 6-3-407, 6-3-607, 6-3-802 (1997).

2

In 13 States, conviction under the main fraud and deceit statutes in effect in 1996 could categorically qualify under subparagraph (M)(i). But the relevant monetary thresholds for these offenses — that is, the thresholds such that conviction categorically would satisfy the monetary requirement of subparagraph (M)(i) — were significantly higher than $10,000. Additionally, a number of these States had statutes targeted at particular kinds of fraud without any relevant monetary threshold. Alaska: see, e.g., Alaska Stat. §§11.46.120, 11.46.180 (1996) ($25,000); but see, e. g., § 11.46.285 (fraudulent use of a credit card, no relevant monetary threshold). Arizona: see, e. g., Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 13-1802 (West 1989), 13-2109 (West 2000) ($25,000); but see, e. g., §§ 13-2103 (receipt of anything of value by fraudulent use of a credit card), 13-2204 (defrauding secured creditors), 13-2205 (defrauding judgment creditors), 13-2206 (West 1989) (fraud in insolvency), all with no relevant monetary threshold. Colorado: see, e. g., Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18-4-401 (Supp. 1996) ($15,000), but see, e.g., §§ 18-5-205 (fraud by check), 18-5-207 (1986) (purchase on credit to defraud), both with no relevant monetary threshold. Delaware: see, e. g., Del. Code *50Ann., Tit. 11, §§841, 843 (1995) ($50,000); but see, e. g., §§903 (unlawful use of credit card), 913 (insurance fraud), 916 (home improvement fraud), all with no relevant monetary threshold. Hawaii: see, e.g., Haw. Rev. Stat. §§708-830, 708-830.5 (Lexis 1994) ($20,000); but see, e. g., §§708-873 (defrauding secured creditors), 708-8100 (fraudulent use of a credit card), 708-8100.5 (fraudulent encoding of a credit card), 708-8103 (credit card fraud by a provider of goods or services), all with no relevant monetary threshold. Indiana: see, e.g., Ind. Code §§35-43-4-1, 35-43-4-2 (West 1993) ($100,000), 35-43-5-7.1 (West Supp. 1996) ($50,000); but see, e.g., §§35-43-5-3 (deception), 35-43-5-4 (West 1993) (insurance and credit card fraud), 35-43-5-7 (welfare fraud), 35-43-5-8 (fraud on financial institutions), all with no relevant monetary threshold. Kansas: see, e. g., Kan. Stat. Ann. §§21-3701 (1995), 21-3707 (Supp. 1996), 21-3729 (1995), 21-3846 (Supp. 1996) ($25,000). Minnesota: see, e. g., Minn. Stat. § 609.52 (1996) ($35,000). New Jersey: see, e. g., N. J. Stat. Ann. §§2C:20-2, 2C:20-4, 2C:21-13, 2C:21-17 (West 1995) ($75,000); but see, e.g., §§2C:21-6 (credit cards), 2C:21-12 (defrauding secured creditors), both without a relevant monetary threshold. New Mexico: see, e. g., N. M. Stat. Ann. §§30-16-6 (1994), 30-33-13 (1997), 30-44-7 (1989), 30-50-4 (1997) ($20,000); but see, e. g., § 30-16-33 (1994) (credit card fraud, no relevant monetary threshold). New York: see, e. g., N. Y. Penal Law Ann. §§ 155.05 (West 1988), 155.40, 158.20 (West Supp. 1998), 176.25 ($50,000); but see, e. g., §§190.65 (scheme to defraud), 185.00 (fraud in insolvency), 185.05 (fraud involving security interest), all with no relevant monetary threshold. Ohio: see, e. g., Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§2913.02, 2913.11, 2913.21, 2913.40, 2913.45, 2913.47, 2913.48 (Lexis 1996) ($100,000). Texas: see, e. g., Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§31.02 (West 1994), 31.03, 35.02 (West Supp. 2003) ($20,000); but see, e.g., §32.31 (credit card or debit card abuse, no relevant monetary threshold).

*513

In eight States, the main fraud and deceit statutes in effect in 1996 had relevant monetary thresholds of $10,000. However, a number of these States also had statutes targeted at particular kinds of fraud without any relevant monetary threshold. Connecticut: see, e. g., Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§53a-119 (West Supp. 1996), 53a-122 (West 1994); but see, e.g., §§53a-128e, 53a~128i (credit card crimes, no relevant monetary threshold). Florida: see, e.g., Fla. Stat. Ann. §§812.012 (1994), 812.014 (West Supp. 1996); but see, e.g., §§817.234 (insurance fraud), 817.61 (fraudulent use of credit cards), both without a relevant monetary threshold. Illinois: see, e.g., Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann., ch. 720, §5/16-1 (West Supp. 1995 and 1995 Ill. Laws pp. 3925-3926); but see, e. g., §§ 5/17-6 (West 1993) (state benefits fraud), 5/17-9 (public aid wire fraud), 5/17-10 (public aid mail fraud), 5/17-13 (1995 Ill. Laws, at 2888) (fraudulent land sales), all without a relevant monetary threshold. Iowa: see, e. g., Iowa Code Ann. §§714.1, 714.2 (West 1993), 714.8 (West 1993 and 1994 Iowa Acts p. 46), 714.9 (West 1993). Maine: see, e. g., Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 17A, §§354, 362 (1983); but see, e.g., §§902 (defrauding a creditor), 908 (1995 Me. Acts pp. 893-894) (home repair fraud), both without relevant monetary thresholds. North Dakota: see, e.g., N. D. Cent. Code Ann. §§ 12.1-23-02, 12.1-23-05 (Lexis 1997). Oregon: see, e. g., Ore. Rev. Stat. §§ 164.085, 164.057 (1991); but see, e. g., §§ 165.055 (1993 Ore. Laws p. 1826) (fraudulent use of a credit card), 165.692 (1995 Ore. Laws p. 1285), 165.990 (1991 and 1995 Ore. Laws, at 1285-1286) (false claims for health care payments), both without a relevant monetary threshold. Tennessee: see, e.g., Tenn. Code Ann. §§39-14-101, 39-14-105, 39-14-118, 39-14-133 (1991).