Second Circuit

AGGRAVATED FELONY - FRAUD OFFENSES - ATTEMPT
Ljutica v. Holder, 588 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. Dec. 3, 2009) (federal conviction of attempted bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2, 1344, constitutes a fraud aggravated felony, under INA 101(a)(43)(U), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(U), even though defendant was caught before any loss occurred), following Matter of Onyido, 22 I. & N. Dec. Dec. 522 (BIA 1999).

Third Circuit

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).

BANK FRAUD - FRAUD OFFENSES
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).

MISAPPLICATION OF BANK FUNDS - DECEIT
Valansi v. Ashcroft, 203 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. Feb. 1, 2000) (federal conviction of misapplication of bank funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 656, is not categorically an offense involving "deceit" for purposes of INA § 101(a)(43)(M)(i) (fraud or deceit)).

Lower Courts of Third Circuit

BANK FRAUD - FRAUD OFFENSE
Sulaiman v. Attorney General, Immigration and Naturalization Service, 212 F.Supp.2d 413 (E.D.Pa. July 30, 2002) (federal conviction of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344, held to be an aggravated felony fraud offense with loss to victim(s) in excess of $10,000, under INA § 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), for the immigration purpose of denying asylum).

BANK FRAUD - FRAUD OFFENSE
Sharma v. Ashcroft, 158 F.Supp.2d 519, 521 (E.D.Pa. May 25, 2001) (federal conviction of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344, constitutes an "aggravated felony" as defined by 8 U.S .C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) for immigration purposes).

BANK FRAUD - CONSPIRACY
United States v. Ogembe, 41 F.Supp.2d 567 (E.D.Pa. Mar. 3, 1999) (federal conviction of conspiracy to commit bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 constitutes an aggravated felony as an offense that "involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000" under INA §§ 101(a)(43)(M)(i), (U), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), (U), regardless of sentence).

Seventh Circuit

BANK FRAUD - FRAUD OFFENSE
Knutsen v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 733 (7th Cir. Nov. 22, 2005) (federal conviction of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344, did not constitute aggravated felony fraud offense under INA § 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), since losses stemming from dismissed second count of two-count bank fraud indictment against noncitizen could not be added to the losses from the first count, to which the guilty plea was entered, for purpose of showing that the loss to the victim exceeded $10,000, as required for the offense to constitute an aggravated felony, because neither the first count nor the plea agreement alleged a single scheme with a loss over $10,000, and stipulations in plea agreement did not amount to a concession that the total loss amount of fraudulent scheme exceeded $10,000), distinguishing Khalayleh v. INS, 287 F.3d 978 (10th Cir. Apr. 23, 2002).

Ninth Circuit

AGGRAVATED FELONY - FRAUD
Carlos-Blaza v. Holder, 611 F.3d 583 (9th Cir. Jun. 30, 2010) (federal conviction for violation of 18 U.S.C. 656, stealing, embezzling, and misapplying bank funds, is an aggravated felony fraud offense since knowing misapplication of funds necessarily involves fraud).

BANK FRAUD - FRAUD OFFENSE
Chang v. INS, 307 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. Oct. 11, 2002) (federal conviction of bank fraud for knowingly passing a $605.30 bad check held not to constitute an aggravated felony, under INA § 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), as a conviction of an offense involving fraud for which the loss to the victim(s) exceeded $10,000, even though losses resulting from the entire scheme described in the PSR exceeded $30,000, since plea agreement specified loss from the count of conviction as $605.30).

Tenth Circuit

BANK FRAUD - FRAUD OFFENSE
Khalayleh v. INS, 287 F.3d 978, 980 (10th Cir. Apr. 23, 2002) (federal conviction of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344(1), constituted conviction of an offense involving fraud, with a loss to the victim(s) in excess of $10,000, and was therefore an aggravated felony for deportation purposes under INA § 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), since the count of the indictment to which a plea was entered alleged a scheme to defraud encompassing a number of checks indisputably totaling in excess of $10,000; result might be different if each "count alleged a discrete fraud involving a single check," "even if a plea agreement gave the district court authority to order restitution with respect to all four checks in the indictment, see 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(3), perhaps only the check in the count to which the defendant pleaded could properly be considered in determining the amount of the loss for purposes of the definition of aggravated felony.").

Eleventh Circuit

CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT BANK FRAUD - FRAUD OFFENSE
Bejacmar v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 735 (11th Cir. May 14, 2002) (conspiracy to commit bank fraud, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, constituted an aggravated felony under INA § 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), since the loss exceeded $10,000).

MISAPPLICATION OF BANK FUNDS - FRAUD OFFENSE
Moore v. Ashcroft, 251 F.3d 919 (11th Cir. May 14, 2001) (federal conviction of misapplication of bank funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 656, constituted aggravated felony under INA § 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) for removal purposes, since it necessarily involves fraud or deceit and loss exceeded $10,000).