Evangelista v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. Feb. 23, 2004).      In Evangelista v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 145 at *6-7 (2d Cir. 2004), the Second Circuit rejected the Fifth Circuit analysis of "relating to" parentheticals in United States v. Monjaras-Casteneda, 190 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 1999). The Fifth Circuit applied rules of grammar to find that the "relating to" language in various sections of the aggravated felony definition was merely descriptive of the immediately preceding statute, while other parenthetical language within the aggravated felony definition actually restricted the scope of the immediately preceding statute. Monjaras-Casteneda, 190 F.3d at 329-330.      Looking to INA 101(a)(43)(L)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(L)(ii) (a violation of 50 U.S.C. 421 "related to" protecting identity of undercover intelligence agents), and INA 101(a)(43)(L)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(iii) (a violation of 50 U.S.C. 421 "related to" protecting identity of undercover agents), the Second Circuit found that the Fifth Circuits reasoning could not be logically applied to the entire aggravated felony definition, as INA 101(a)(43)(L)(ii) and (iii) used the "relating to" parenthetical language to describe two distinct offenses punished under the same statute. Evangelista v. Ashcroft, at *7. Since INA 101(a)(43)(L)(iii), must be presumed not to be merely duplicative of INA 101(a)(43)(L)(ii), the "relating to" language, as used in those to sections, must be read as restricting the scope of the subsection of the aggravated felony definition, rather than merely describing 50 U.S.C. 421. See United States v. Blasius, 397 F.2d 203 (2d Cir. 1968) (presumption against construing statute as containing superfluous or meaningless words or giving it a construction that would render the statute ineffective).      The Second Circuit, however, did not give any indication of what effect this rejection might have upon future challenges to the parenthetical language, as the court found that "avoiding a tax," and "defeating a tax" under 26 U.S.C. 7201, were synonymous, and therefore a conviction for "defeating a tax" under that statute was an aggravated felony offense regardless of whether the "relating to" parenthetical language was descriptive or restrictive.