Any noncitizen who an immigration official knows, or has reason to believe, has engaged, is engaging, or seeks to enter the United States to engage, in an offense described in 18 U.S.C. § § 1956 or 1957 (relating to laundering of monetary instruments), is inadmissible.  The same is true for anyone an immigration official knows, or has reason to believe is or has been a knowing aider, abettor, assister, conspirator, or colluder with others in such an offense.[192]

 

                The “reason to believe” analysis and burdens under this ground should be the same as for the “reason to believe” drug trafficking ground.  See § 21.6, infra.  Money laundering is also considered a CMT.[193]  Money laundering may also qualify as an aggravated felony.[194]

 

[192] INA § 212(a)(2)(I), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(I).

[193] Smalley v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 332 (5th Cir. 2003); Matter of UH, 23 I. & N. Dec. 355, 356 (BIA 2002).

[194] Chowdhury v. INS, 249 F.3d 970, 972-974 (9th Cir. May 14, 2001) (federal conviction for money laundering $1,310 in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A) did not constitute an “aggravated felony,” even though defendant was ordered to pay $967,753.39 in restitution, because, under INA § 101(a)(43)(D), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(D), the amount of funds laundered must exceed $10,000).  See § 19.77, infra.

MONEY LAUNDERING ELEMENTS
Cuellar v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 1994 (Jun. 2, 2008) (federal money laundering conviction, for international transportation of the proceeds of unlawful activity, under 18 U.S.C. 1956, reversed for lack of proof that the defendant did more than merely hide the money during its transport or did anything to create the appearance of legitimate wealth).

Ninth Circuit

INADMISSIBILITY " REASON TO BELIEVE DRUG TRAFFICKING
Gomez-Granillo v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2011 WL 2714163(9th Cir. Jul.14, 2011) (where, as here, respondent was charged in a removal hearing with inadmissibility under the reason to believe drug trafficking ground, INA 212(a)(2)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(C): the IJ, as a representative of the Attorney General, was free to receive new information at the evidentiary hearing, and to decide its credibility and weight. See Alarcon-Serrano, 220 F.3d at 119-20. It was permissible and appropriate for the IJ and BIA to rely on such information in determining whether there was reason to believe petitioner was knowingly transporting marijuana when he attempted to cross the border into the United States. See id. Accordingly, we conclude that it was proper for the IJ to receive and consider petitioner's testimony, Agent Lehman's opinion, and other information not necessarily known, actually or constructively, to officers at the border on December 13, 2002.).

INADMISSIBILITY " REASON TO BELIEVE DRUG TRAFFICKING "CREDIBILITY DETERMINATION
Gomez-Granillo v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2011 WL 2714163 (9th Cir. Jul.14, 2011) (Because the IJ did not understand that he could consider credible testimony by petitioner, he evidently did not, even implicitly, make a decision regarding petitioner's credibility. Failure of the IJ and BIA to evaluate the credibility of a petitioner's testimony in a case like this is a fundamental flaw, which deprives a petitioner of his right to have his testimony considered and precludes effective review.); see Lopez"Umanzor, 405 F.3d at 1059; Hartooni v. INS, 21 F.3d 336, 343 (9th Cir.1994) (remanding for a credibility determination where the BIA relied on the IJ's credibility determination when, in fact, the IJ did not make such a credibility finding); see also Kho v. Keisler,505 F.3d 50, 56 (1st Cir.2007) (If, in the absence of a credibility finding by the IJ, a reviewing court determines that such a finding is necessary for effective review of the case, it may remand to the agency for further factfinding.).

INADMISSIBILITY " REASON TO BELIEVE DRUG TRAFFICKING
Gomez-Granillo v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 2714163 (9th Cir. Jul. 14, 2011) (information constituting reason to believe that respondent engaged in drug trafficking must be in possession of Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security " not only the individual officer admitting respondent " at the time of admission, to constitute ground of inadmissibility under INA 212(a)(2)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(C)); citing Matter of Casillas"Topete, 25 I & N Dec. 317, 321 (BIA 2010) (noncitizen is inadmissible under the reason to believe drug trafficking ground of inadmissibility, INA 212(a)(2)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(C), if sufficient facts are known to the consular officer, Attorney General, or Department of Homeland Security at the time the admission occurred, even if they are not known to the inspecting immigration official who admitted the noncitizen: [I]t is not relevant under the terms of the statute that the inspecting immigration officer does not have access to information regarding the alien's trafficking if that information is known to other immigration officials. . . . Thus, as long as the information was demonstrably known to an appropriate immigration official when the admission occurred, it can be relied on to sustain the charge.).

INADMISSIBILITY " REASON TO BELIEVE DRUG TRAFFICKER " COURT OF APPEAL STANDARD OF REVIEW OF BIA DECISION
Gomez-Granillo v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2011 WL 2714163 (9th Cir. Jul. 14, 2011) (The court must determine whether reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence supports the IJ's reason to believe that [petitioner] knew he was participating in illicit drug trafficking.); quoting Lopez-Molina, 368 F.3d at 1211, quoting Alarcon-Serrano, 220 F.3d at 1119.

INADMISSIBILITY " REASON TO BELIEVE DRUG TRAFFICKER " WHO MUST HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE
Gomez-Granillo v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2011 WL 2714163 (9th Cir. Jul. 14, 2011) (The IJ and BIA may, depending on the circumstances, be among the appropriate immigration officials included in the term Attorney General [or Secretary of Homeland Security] in 1182(a)(2)(C). See Lopez"Molina, 368 F.3d at 1211"12; Alarcon"Serrano, 220 F.3d at 1119; Casillas-Topete, 25 I & N Dec. at 321.). NOTE: This situation generally would arise where the respondent was apprehended at the border, charged with inadmissibility, and served with an NTA to allow the IJ to make the inadmissibility determination.

INADMISSIBILITY " REASON TO BELIEVE " TIMING
Gomez-Granillo v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2011 WL 2714163 (9th Cir. Jul. 14, 2011) (The appropriate immigration officials may make a finding of reason to believe based only on information available when the admission occurred. See Casillas"Topete, 25 I & N Dec. at 321. Therefore, the appropriate immigration officials must collectively know the information before the alien makes lawful entry into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer. See 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(A); Hing Sum, 602 F.3d at 1096 (defining admission); Matter of Rosas"Ramirez, 22 I & N Dec. at 618"20 (same).).

INADMISSIBILITY " REASON TO BELIEVE DRUG TRAFFICKING " ADMISSIONS BEFORE IMMIGRATION COURT
Gomez-Granillo v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2011 WL 2714163 (9th Cir. Jul. 14, 2011) (Accordingly, where the alien is apprehended at the border and, rather than being admitted, is charged with being inadmissible, information learned by the IJ during the subsequent proceedings to determine inadmissibility may be considered in deciding whether there is reason to believe the alien is involved in drug trafficking. See Alarcon"Serrano, 220 F.3d at 1119"20. [Footnote omitted.] However, if the alien is admitted, information not known to an appropriate immigration official when the admission occurred may not later be relied upon to sustain a charge that the alien was inadmissible at the time of admission. [Footnote omitted.] See Casillas"Topete, 25 I & N Dec. at 321.).

INADMISSIBILITY " REASON TO BELIEVE " ADMISSIONS BEFORE IMMIGRATION COURT
Gomez-Granillo v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, n.7, 2011 WL 2714163 (9th Cir. Jul. 14, 2011) (Because petitioner was charged with being inadmissible at the time of his hearing, we need not, and do not, decide whether the IJ may consider an alien's post-admission testimony in evaluating the evidence known at the time of admission.).

INADMISSIBILITY " REASON TO BELIEVE DRUG TRAFFICKING " NINTH CIRCUIT RULES FOR CONSIDERING REASON TO BELIEVE QUESTION IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
In Gomez-Granillo, the Ninth Circuit synthesized the rules for conducting a removal hearing on a question whether there was reason to believe respondent was a drug trafficker at the time of admission: 1. The IJ and BIA may, depending on the circumstances, be among the appropriate immigration officials included in the term Attorney General [or Secretary of Homeland Security] in 1182(a)(2)(C). See Lopez"Molina, 368 F.3d at 1211"12; Alarcon"Serrano, 220 F.3d at 1119; Casillas"Topete, 25 I & N Dec. at 321. 2. The appropriate immigration officials may make a finding of reason to believe based only on information available when the admission occurred. See Casillas"Topete, 25 I & N Dec. at 321. Therefore, the appropriate immigration officials must collectively know the information before the alien makes lawful entry into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer. See 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(A); Hing Sum, 602 F.3d at 1096 (defining admission); Matter of Rosas"Ramirez, 22 I & N Dec. at 618"20 (same). 3. Accordingly, where the alien is apprehended at the border and, rather than being admitted, is charged with being inadmissible, information learned by the IJ during the subsequent proceedings to determine inadmissibility may be considered in deciding whether there is reason to believe the alien is involved in drug trafficking. See Alarcon"Serrano, 220 F.3d at 1119"20. However, if the alien is admitted, information not known to an appropriate immigration official when the admission occurred may not later be relied upon to sustain a charge that the alien was inadmissible at the time of admission. See Casillas"Topete, 25 I & N Dec. at 321. (Gomez-Granillo v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2011 WL 2714163 (9th Cir. Jul.14, 2011) (footnotes omitted).) The court stated it was an open question whether the IJ may consider an alien's post-admission testimony in evaluating the evidence known at the time of admission. (Id. at n.7.)