Fraud, deceit, and tax evasion are aggravated felonies only if the “loss to the victim” or revenue loss to the government is $10,000 or more.[440]  Money laundering is also an aggravated felony if the amount of funds laundered exceeds $10,000.[441]  See § 5.60 (money laundering), infra.  Important questions remain unanswered regarding these categories.  What is the meaning of “loss to the victim” or government, or amount of funds?  What evidence may the immigration authorities use to establish the amount of loss?  What is the effect of repayment of the funds?  What if there was no actual loss? 

 

            The safest strategy is to avoid any reference in the record of conviction to any loss in an amount in excess of $10,000, including in any restitution order.  In some cases the defendant may be able to delay conviction and sentencing for some period while s/he pays restitution voluntarily, in order to have a lower sum reflected on the record.

 

            The courts are not allowed to go beyond the record of conviction to determine the amount of loss.  Beyond this limitation, however, the courts are divided, and often unclear, regarding the various issues involved in how to determine loss to the victim.  See also § 4.6, supra.

 

[440] INA § 101(a)(43)(M), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M).

[441] INA § 101(a)(43)(D), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(D).

AGGRAVATED FELONY " FRAUD OFFENSES " LOSS MUST BE TIED TO COUNT OF CONVICTION
The Supreme Court held that to constitute a fraud aggravated felony, the loss to the victim resulting from the conviction must be tied or tethered to the specific count of conviction, rather than other offenses or dismissed counts. Nijhawan v. Holder, supra, 557 U.S. at 42 (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 (C.A.3 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 (C.A.7 2005) (same).). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has previously held that where a plea agreement specifies a certain individual transaction, and the loss from that transaction does not exceed $10,000, the immigration authorities are limited to the loss specified in the plea agreement, even though total restitution in excess of $10,000 for the specific loss attributable to the count of conviction plus other relevant conduct and dismissed counts). Chang v. INS, 307 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2002).

AGGRAVATED FELONY - LOSS TO THE VICTIM
National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967, 982-983, 125 S.Ct. 2688 (June 27, 2005) ("A court's prior judicial construction of a statute trumps an agency construction otherwise entitled to Chevron deference only if the prior court decision holds that its construction follows from the unambiguous terms of the statute and thus leaves no room for agency discretion. . . . Only a judicial precedent holding that the statute unambiguously forecloses the agency's interpretation, and therefore contains no gap for the agency to fill, displaces a conflicting agency construction. " [emphasis added]).

Congress is not presumed to overrule existing law sub silentio. The categorical analysis and divisible statute rules were in place before the recent immigration legislation was enacted. There are strong arguments that the BIA's decision in Matter of Babaisakof, 24 I. & N. Dec. 306 (BIA 2007), does not qualify as the type of subsequent administrative interpretation under the Supreme Court's test in Brand X that can abrogate the Ninth Circuit fraud decisions. See Brand X, supra, 545 U.S. at 982: "A court's prior judicial construction of a statute trumps an agency construction otherwise entitled to Chevron deference only if the prior court decision holds that its construction follows from the unambiguous terms of the statute and thus leaves no room for agency discretion." In Chang v. INS, 307 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2002), the Ninth Circuit's language suggests its decision was based on the "unambiguous terms" of INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i) and the statutory definition of conviction at INA 101(a)(48)(A): "To adopt the government's approach would divorce the $10,000 loss requirement from the conviction requirement, see 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (providing that an alien is deportable 'who is convicted of an aggravated felony'." Chang v. INS is the type of circuit decision that the Court in Brand X said is not subject to abrogration by a later administrative interpretation. The argument may not be as strong for Matter of NAM, 24 I. & N. Dec. 336 (BIA 2007) (offense need not be an aggravated felony to be a particularly serious crime for withholding purposes), or in other circuits, but in the Ninth Circuit, because Chang was linked to statutory construction and not just the Taylor/Shepard analysis, the BIA's later interpretation cannot overrule the Ninth Circuit's decision in Chang v. INS. Li v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2004), or the other 9th Circuit fraud cases, may offer additional support. Thanks to Dan Kesselbrenner.

BIA

RECORD OF CONVICTION - RESTITUTION ORDER - FAILURE TO CONSTITUTE CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF NATURE OF CONVICTION WHERE RESTITUTION AWARD MAY BE BASED ON PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE
Matter of Velazquez-Herrera, 24 I. & N. Dec. 503, ___ (BIA May 20, 2008) (Washington restitution order, contained in judgment, indicating that the respondent owed no restitution to his "child victim" did not "constitute clear and convincing evidence that the respondent was convicted of abusing a child. Specifically, in Washington the facts upon which a restitution award may be based need only have been proven to the judge by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Dennis, 6 P.3d 1173, 1175 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). As a result, they do not constitute proof of the defendant's "convicted conduct," which must have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt or admitted as part of a plea.").

AGGRAVATED FELONY - FRAUD - LOSS OF VICTIM - RESTITUTION
Matter of Cabrera, 24 I. & N. Dec. 459 (BIA Feb. 27, 2008) (costs and surcharges imposed in Florida deferred adjudication proceeding constitute a form of "punishment" or "penalty" for purposes of establishing that a noncitizen has suffered a "conviction" within the meaning of INA 101(a)(48)(A)). Note: the court here sought to establish a national standard (rather than relying on Florida state law), and includes amounts paid in restitution as a cost equaling "punishment."

AGGRAVATED FELONY - FRAUD - LOSS TO THE VICTIM
Matter of Babaisakov, 24 I. & N. Dec. 306 (BIA Sept. 28, 2007) (IJ erred in failing to examine presentence report to determine whether noncitizen had been convicted of an aggravated felony fraud offense, with a loss of $10,000 or more; the loss to the victim requirement under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), is an "extra element" that may be determined (1) without application of the categorical or divisible statute analysis; and (2) by looking beyond the record of conviction to "any evidence admissible in removal proceedings bearing on the loss to the victim," including testimony in immigration court).

NOTE: This is an insupportable decision, building upon the BIAs analysis in Matter of Gertsenshteyn, 24 I. & N. Dec. 111 (BIA 2007). It is extremely likely to be overturned or limited (if appealed), as the case arose in the Third Circuit, which, while allowing proof of a portion of a ground of deportation beyond the elements of the offense of conviction, requires that the extra element be found by examination of the record of conviction, and not beyond. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 144 (3d Cir. 2004); Alaka v. Attorney General, 456 F.3d 88 (3d Cir. Jul. 18, 2006) (cannot look to dismissed counts; limiting examination to the indictment, plea, verdict, sentence, and any explicit factual findings by the trial judge."), citing Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 16, 125 S.Ct. 1254 (2005). The BIA decision in fact cites the Third Circuit as already having made a holding contrary to the BIAs holding. Matter of Babaisakov, 24 I&N Dec. at 316.

Thus the BIA is blatantly ignoring the rule that the court must follow the law of the circuit in which the case arose. Matter of Anselmo, 20 I. & N. Dec. 25 (BIA 1989). While on the one hand suggesting that it is following Alaka (see, e.g., Babaisakov, n.8), the decision concludes with the following: "We leave for another day any questions that may arise with respect to circuit law that may be in tension with this decision, as we ordinarily follow circuit law in cases arising within a particular circuit and the grounds for any departure would need to be developed in the context of specific cases." Matter of Babaisakov, supra, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 322 (emphasis supplied). Apparently the BIA no longer feels it needs follow the law of the circuit courts.

The only basis on which this case might not be overruled is the fact that the criminal trial judge "affirmatively adopted" the PSR without change, thus arguably making the PSR an explicit factual finding by the trial judge, and so any discussion of abandoning the categorical analysis or allowing examination of any admissible evidence could be read as dictum. Only the First Circuit has suggested an analysis similar to that presented in this case. See Conteh v. Gonzales, 461 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2006).

AGGRAVATED FELONY - FRAUD OFFENSE -- LOSS TO VICTIM
De Vega v. Gonzales, __ F.3d __, 2007 WL 2696489 (1st Cir. Sept. 17, 2007) (Massachusetts conviction of larceny of property valued at more than $250.00 and false representations to the Department of Public Welfare in order to secure support, based on noncitizen's admission of sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt [even though the court did not make an actual finding of guilt], and restitution in excess of $10,000 was ordered by the court, constituted fraud offense aggravated felony, under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) where IJ properly inferred actual loss to the victim in excess of $10,000).

Note: Defendant was charged with one count of larceny in excess of $250.00, and one count of making false representations to the department of welfare in order to secure support. "The IJ noted that the restitution was technically imposed in response to the larceny charge, which the IJ found not to be an aggravated felony, but held that the distinction was immaterial because the two charges were coterminous in terms of the dates of occurrence on the complaint form and the sentence imposed relate[d] clearly to both counts." Id. at *4. The First Circuit found the IJ could properly infer from the record that the two charges were part of a single scheme of criminal misconduct, and therefore the restitution amount reflected the loss of both the larceny and the fraud jointly.

This decision improperly attributes a restitution order related to a conviction of larceny, rather than fraud, to a dismissed fraud offense, to find an aggravated felony. The restitution order was not based on a "conviction" of a fraud offense, but rather a theft offense. Therefore, this larceny conviction did not properly constitute a fraud aggravated felony.

AGGRAVATED FELONY - FRAUD - LOSS TO THE VICTIM
Martinez v. Mukasey, ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 3358397 (5th Cir. Nov. 14, 2007) (per curiam) (where the indictment charges a loss in excess of $1,500, and the plea agreement indicates $11,000 in restitution, the amount of restitution may be used to determine loss to the victim, since charge and restitution amount are not inconsistent).

First Circuit

AGGRAVATED FELONY - FRAUD - LOSS TO VICTIM
Conteh v. Gonzales, __ F.3d __ (1st Cir. Aug. 22, 2006) (BIA may look to restitution amount ordered to determine loss to the victim).

Second Circuit

AGGRAVATED FELONY - FRAUD - LOSS TO THE VICTIM - RESITUTION
Dulal-Whiteway v. US Dep't of Homeland Sec., 501 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. Sept. 19, 2007) (neither a PSR, nor a statement of restitution, are included in the record of conviction; "Though the Shepard Court did not address the issue of a restitution order, its logic clearly excludes such a document [from the record of conviction]. The restitution set by a judge is based on a loss amount established by a preponderance of the evidence and need not be tied to the facts admitted by a defendant's plea. See 18 U.S.C. 1664(e) (Any dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence.); United States v. Reifler, 446 F.3d 65, 118 (2d Cir. 2006) (rejecting defendants' contentions that the orders requiring them to make restitution for loss amounts not admitted in their plea allocutions violated their rights under the Sixth Amendment as enunciated in [United States v.] Booker, [543 U.S. 220 (2005) ], because the principle that jury findings, or admissions by the defendant, establish the maximum authorized punishment has no application to MVRA orders of restitution). In other words, the amount of restitution is not constrained by facts on which the plea necessarily rested."; "the BIA may rely only upon facts actually and necessarily found beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury or judge in order to establish the elements of the offense, as indicated by a charging document or jury instructions. For convictions following a plea, the BIA may rely only upon facts to which a defendant actually and necessarily pleaded in order to establish the elements of the offense, as indicated by a charging document, written plea agreement, or plea colloquy transcript."), disagreeing with Conteh v. Gonzales, 461 F.3d 45 (1st Cir.2006).

Third Circuit

AGGRAVATED FELONY " FRAUD OR DECEIT " LOSS TO THE VICTIM
Singh v. Att'y General, 677 F.3d 503 (3d Cir. Apr. 16, 2012) (federal conviction of knowingly making a false statement under penalty of perjury in a bankruptcy proceeding in violation of 18 U.S.C. 152(3), did not trigger removal-deportation as an aggravated felony fraud conviction, because government failed to show that actual loss to the victim exceeded $10,000.00). NOTE: This case agrees with Pierre v. Holder 588 F.3d 767 (2d Cir. 2009), in finding that to be a fraud or deceit aggravated felony, there must be a actual loss, rather than merely an intended or attempted a loss, in excess of $10,000. The court suggests, however, that the government should have charged the respondent under INA 101(a)(43)(U), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(U), to capture intended loss.

AGGRAVATED FELONY " FRAUD OR DECEIT " LOSS TO THE VICTIM " RESTITUTION ORDER
Singh v. Att'y General, 677 F.3d 503 (3d Cir. Apr. 16, 2012) (rejecting Government argument that $54,000 restitution order proved actual loss in excess of $10,000; "First, its reliance on the MVRA ["Mandatory Victims Restitution Act"] is misplaced because the record shows that the sentencing court issued restitution pursuant to an express agreement by the parties, not the MVRA. Second, the law governing restitution issued pursuant to a party agreement shows that such orders are not limited to actual losses from the offense of conviction. Third, even if the court's restitution order reflected a judicial finding of loss, Nijhawan and our own precedent make clear that we need not take the order at face value for removal purposes, particularly when, as here, it conflicts with undisputed facts in the sentencing material.").

AGGRAVATED FELONY " FRAUD OFFENSE " LOSS TO THE VICTIM
Doe v. Attorney General, 659 F.3d 266 (3d Cir. Sept. 8, 2011) (in evaluating the amount of loss to the victim in excess of $10,000, necessary to establish an aggravated felony fraud offense, under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), a court must limit itself to consideration of the loss tethered to the alien's specific offense of conviction.); see Alaka v. Att'y Gen., 456 F.3d 88, 106 (3d Cir.2006) (it was legal error for the IJ to consider the amount of intended loss for all of the charges rather than the single count for which she was convicted.); Nijhawan v. Holder, """ U.S. """", 129 S.Ct. 2294, 2303, 174 L.Ed.2d 22 (2009).

AGGRAVATED FELONY " FRAUD OFFENSE " LOSS TO THE VICTIM
Doe v. Attorney General, 659 F.3d 266 (3d Cir. Sept. 8, 2011) (Rodov pled guilty not to a single fraudulent transaction but to aiding and abetting the whole of a large-scale criminal endeavor, so the record established the loss from the offense of conviction was in excess of $10,000, sufficient to establish that the offense was an aggravated felony fraud offense under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i)); see Khalayleh v. INS, 287 F.3d 978, 980 (10th Cir. 2002) (Count Two of the indictment did not allege a discrete fraud involving only the $9,308 check. It alleged a scheme to defraud that encompassed a number of checks.... The offense of conviction was the entire scheme charged in Count Two of the indictment. Hence, the loss to be measured is the loss resulting from that scheme.).

AGGRAVATED FELONY - FRAUD - SECURITIES FRAUD WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL - PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRIME
Kaplun v. Holder, 602 F.3d 260 (3d Cir. Apr. 9, 2010) (federal conviction for violation of 15 U.S.C. 77q, 77x, securities fraud, is an aggravated felony fraud offense under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), where PSR, to which defendant entered no objection, indicated a loss in excess of $10,000; BIA did not err in finding securities fraud with a loss between $700,000-900,000 was a particularly serious crime for purposes of withholding of removal).

AGGRAVATED FELONY - FRAUD OFFENSE - LOSS OVER $10,000
Nijhawan v. Attorney General, 523 F.3d 387 (3d Cir. May 2, 2008) (federal conviction of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371, constituted a fraud offense aggravated felony, under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), despite an argument the jury did not find any loss amount over $10,000, since noncitizen stipulated in criminal court for sentencing purposes the loss to the victims was in excess of $100 million, affirming BIA holding that loss was not a necessary element of the offense since it "was used as a qualifier, in a way similar to length of sentence provisions in other aggravated felony subsections."; "taken together, the indictment, judgment of conviction, and stipulation provide clear and convincing evidence that the requisite loss was tied to Nijhawans offense of conviction"), citing Singh v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 144, 161 (3d Cir. 2004).

AGGRAVATED FELONY - FRAUD - LOSS TO THE VICTIM
Nijhawan v. Attorney General, 523 F.3d 387 (3d Cir. May 2, 2008) (rejecting argument that loss must be established beyond a reasonable doubt by criminal court: "we should not raise an aspect of an immigration statute to the level of an element of a criminal offense, as the dissent urges, merely because requiring that it be a part of the conviction eases a courts decision-making process.")

AGGRAVATED FELONY - FRAUD OFFENSES - BANK FRAUD
Alaka v. Attorney General, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 1994500 (3d Cir. Jul. 18, 2006) (federal conviction of one count of aiding and abetting bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1344 and 2, for which the actual loss from the single check was $4,716.68, did not constitute aggravated felony bank fraud conviction, and therefore did not bar noncitizen from eligibility for withholding of deportation).

AGGRAVATED FELONY - FRAUD OFFENSES - EXTRA ELEMENT
Alaka v. Attorney General, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 1994500 (3d Cir. Jul. 18, 2006) (statute defining fraud offense aggravated felony, INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), by referring to the amount of the loss to the victim, invites inquiry beyond the elements of the offense to determine the amount of loss).

AGGRAVATED FELONY - FRAUD OFFENSES - LOSS TO VICTIM(S) - DISMISSED COUNTS
Alaka v. Attorney General, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 1994500 (3d Cir. Jul. 18, 2006) (in determining whether conviction constituted fraud offense aggravated felony, under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), immigration court erred in considering amount of intended loss for all of the charges - including dismissed counts - rather than limiting loss to victim to the loss for the single count of conviction); accord, Knutsen v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 733 (7th Cir. 2005); Khalayleh v. INS, 287 F.3d 978 (10th Cir. 2002); Chang v. INS, 307 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2002).

Fifth Circuit

AGGRAVATED FELONY " MONEY LAUNDERING " LOSS TO VICTIM " PRESENTENCE REPORT
United States v. Mendoza, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 1591244 (5th Cir. Apr. 9, 2015) (information in presentence investigation report was sufficient to prove conviction was money-laundering aggravated felony, under INA 101(a)(43)(D), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(D), for illegal re-entry sentencing purposes, because the $10,000 requirement for the amount of funds laundered is a circumstance-specific element of the aggravated felony definition, which could be proven by evidence outside the elements of the offense and outside the traditional record of conviction); see United States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586, 619 (5th Cir.2013) (Generally, a PSR bears sufficient indicia of reliability to permit the sentencing court to rely on it at sentencing. In the absence of rebuttal evidence, the sentencing court may properly rely on the PSR and adopt it. (internal alterations and quotation marks omitted)).

AGGRAVATED FELONY - FRAUD - LOSS TO VICTIM
James v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 2536614 (5th Cir. Sept. 5, 2006) (federal conviction for aiding and abetting bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2, 1344, involved a transaction with a credit union in the amount of $9,500, but the BIA correctly evaluated the loss to the victim in the amount of the court-ordered restitution of $129,066.60, since the indictment charged a scheme to defraud that resulted in this amount of restitution, the plea agreement and indictment did not specify a different loss, and the conviction therefore resulted in a loss to the victim exceeding $10,000, as required to constitute an aggravated felony under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i).), following Khalayleh v. INS, 287 F.3d 978 (10th Cir. 2002).

Seventh Circuit

AGGRAVATED FELONY - FRAUD OFFENSE - THEFT OF FINANCIAL IDENTITY - LOSS - WHETHER INTENDED LOSS IS SUFFICIENT
Eke v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 372 (7th Cir. Jan. 7, 2008) (Illinois conviction of identity theft, under 720 ILCS 5/16G-15(a) (using another person's identity information "to fraudulently obtain credit, money, goods, services, or other property."), probably constituted an aggravated felony fraud offense, under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), for purposes of supporting an expedited removal order under INA 238(b), 8 U.S.C. 1228(b)), since an intended loss in excess of $10,000 was sufficient, as opposed to an actual loss: "For what it is worth, we think that Judge Wallace, who argued that intended loss could be considered for subsection (M), had the better of the exchange.") (dictum)), citing Kharana v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 1280, 1282 n.3 (9th Cir. 2007) (dictum); but see id. at 1286 (Wallace, J., concurring).

AGGRAVATED FELONY - FRAUD OFFENSE - LOSS - INTENDED LOSS - ANALOGY TO GUIDELINES RULE
Eke v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 372 (7th Cir. Jan. 7, 2008) ("Furthermore, reading subsection (M) to include intended loss is consistent with the way that loss is defined for purposes of the sentencing guidelines. This court has held that the guidelines call for the use of intended loss in fraud cases, where intended loss is greater than actual loss. United States v. Saunders, 129 F.3d 925, 932 (7th Cir.1997). Indeed, an unused line of credit is generally viewed as an intended loss. See, e.g., United States v. Mei, 315 F.3d 788, 792 (7th Cir.1993) ("[I]n determining an intended loss courts focus on the amount that the scheme placed at risk, not the amount of money or property stolen."); United States v. Lin, 410 F.3d 1187, 1191-93 (10th Cir.2005) (estimating intended loss in credit card fraud by aggregating the limits on the unused credit cards); United States v. Sowels, 998 F.2d 249, 251 (5th Cir.1993) (calculating loss from credit card fraud as the aggregated credit limits of the cards).").

Eighth Circuit

AGGRAVATED FELONY - FRAUD OFFENSE - LOSS TO VICTIM
Tian v. Holder, 576 F.3d 890 (8th Cir. Aug. 19, 2009) (loss to the victim determination must be tied to the count of conviction, and cannot include loss arising from dismissed counts).

AGGRAVATED FELONY - FRAUD OFFENSE - LOSS AMOUNT - INVESTIGATIVE COSTS INCURRED BY VICTIM CONSTITUTE LEGITIMATE LOSS TO VICTIM
Tian v. Holder, 576 F.3d 890 (8th Cir. Aug. 19, 2009) (federal conviction of unauthorized access to a computer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(4), qualifies as a fraud or deceit aggravated felony, because the victim's investigative costs to determine whether defendant caused any damage constitute a legitimate loss factor), following Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. __, 129 S.Ct. 2294 (2009) (fraud offense aggravated felony statute, INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) "calls for a circumstance-specific, not a categorical, interpretation" so the $10,000 threshold "applies to the specific circumstances surrounding an offender's commission of a fraud and deceit crime on a specific occasion.").

NOTE: The defendant conceded at sentencing that the investigative costs were directly related to the count of conviction. However, the court stated that even assuming that was not the case, the defendant had not identified any evidence that showed otherwise. This is arguably an impermissible shift of burden.

AGGRAVATED FELONY - FRAUD OFFENSES - UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO COMPUTER
Tian v. Holder, 576 F.3d 890, 895 (8th Cir. Aug. 19, 2009) (federal conviction of unauthorized access to a computer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(4), qualifies as a fraud or deceit aggravated felony under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), because respondent conceded as much; thus, the question whether this conviction qualified as such was not presented to the court of appeal).

AGGRAVATED FELONY - FRAUD OFFENSES - LOSS AMOUNT INCLUDES INVESTIGATIVE COSTS
Tian v. Holder, 576 F.3d 890, 895-896 (8th Cir. Aug. 19, 2009) ("Both the IJ and the BIA made clear that their findings concerning the amount of the loss were premised on the investigative costs incurred by Parametric. The IJ specifically noted that at a minimum, the investigative costs incurred by [Parametric], in the amount of $29,800, are properly considered a loss to the victim[ ]. And the BIA reasoned that because the investigative costs alone, incurred by [Parametric], are more than $10,000, and these costs were incurred because of [Tian's] unauthorized computer use, ... [Tian's] crime constitutes an aggravated felony.").

Ninth Circuit

AGGRAVATED FELONY " FRAUD OFFENSES " LOSS AMOUNT " CANNOT INCLUDE LOSSES INCURRED PRIOR TO MOMENT DEFENDANT JOINED THE CONSPIRACY
United States v. Rice, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 265459 (9th Cir. Jan. 22, 2015) (reversing sentence for conspiracy to commit money laundering offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(3)(A), since district court improperly based the sentence and restitution order on a loss amount that included money laundered before the defendant joined the conspiracy).

AGGRAVATED FELONY " FRAUD OFFENSES " LOSS AMOUNT " MEDICARE PRESUMPTIVE LOSS AMOUNT
United States v. Popov, 742 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2014) (in federal health care fraud prosecutions, the amount billed to an insurer constitutes sufficient evidence to establish the intended loss by a preponderance of the evidence, if not rebutted).

AGGRAVATED FELONY " FRAUD " LOSS REQUIREMENT " FEDERAL RESTITUTION
United States v. Meredith, 685 F.3d 814 (9th Cir. Jun. 26, 2012) ([W]e have held that restitution orders can include losses caused by related conduct for which the defendant was not convicted.); citing United States v. Brock"Davis, 504 F.3d 991, 998"99 (9th Cir. 2007).