In the case of Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General v. Luis Alexander Duenas-Alvarez (2006), the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a conviction for aiding and abetting in a theft offense can be considered an aggravated felony under immigration law, making it grounds for deportation. The respondent, Duenas-Alvarez was a Peruvian citizen who had been living legally in the United States since 1991 but was convicted of taking a vehicle without consent in California state court. He argued that his crime did not qualify as an "aggravated felony" because he only aided and abetted in the crime rather than committing it himself directly. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this argument stating that federal law generally treats those who aid and abet crimes as responsible as those who commit them directly.

In the dissenting opinion for Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General v. Luis Alexander Duenas-Alvarez (2006), Justice Souter argued that the majority's interpretation of a "theft offense" was too broad and inconsistent with Congress' intent in drafting the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). He contended that not all crimes involving dishonesty or deception should be classified as theft offenses under federal law, which could lead to deportation. Instead, he believed that only those crimes traditionally considered as theft—taking someone else's property with intent to deprive them permanently—should qualify for this category. The majority’s broader definition would include many state-law crimes not typically thought of as “thefts,” potentially leading to unjust deportations based on minor infractions.