(B)  Multiple Counts of Conviction.  In Chang v. INS,[778] the Ninth Circuit held that even where the total loss to all victims was, in fact, over $10,000, a conviction of one count of bank fraud for passing a $605.30 bad check did not involve a loss over $10,000, where the plea agreement specified the loss to be the amount of the check.  The court also rejected the argument that the amount of the restitution order, in excess of $10,000, was sufficient to show that the offense was an aggravated felony, because the restitution order was based on other offenses than the single count of conviction.[779] 

 

The Third Circuit has agreed with this analysis,[780] finding that the immigration authorities could not rely upon a restitution order in excess of $10,000 where the offense of conviction explicitly involved a loss of less than $10,000, and the restitution order incorporated loss amounts from other counts that were dismissed.[781]

                                   

In finding that a federal bank fraud[782] conviction with a loss to the victim(s) in excess of $10,000 was an aggravated felony fraud offense, the Tenth Circuit similarly suggested that a conviction of multiple counts, in which each count “alleged a discrete fraud involving a single check,” would not trigger deportation as an aggravated felony offense, “even if a plea agreement gave the district court authority to order restitution with respect to all four checks in the indictment,” since “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.”[783]  Unfortunately, the court found in that case that the court could consider the loss reflected in dismissed counts, given that those counts were part of the same fraudulent scheme as the count of conviction, and thus included within it.  The Fifth Circuit reached the same conclusion, based on similar facts.[784]

 

The Eleventh Circuit suggested that, in the case of a general conspiracy charge, the loss attributable to dismissed counts may be considered part of the loss to the victim only (if at all) when it is possible to show by clear and convincing evidence that each of those dismissed counts was specifically included in the general conspiracy charge.[785]

 

The Seventh Circuit, declining to state whether it agreed with the Tenth Circuit’s analysis, found that losses reflected in a dismissed count, where there was no overarching scheme, could not be added to the losses from the count to which the guilty plea was entered because neither that count nor the plea agreement alleged a single scheme.[786]  The court noted that to count loss reflected in dismissed counts fails the “the basic and sensible proposition that courts should strive to honor the contractual agreement reached between a defendant and the government.”[787]

 

And there are good policy reasons for this.  For instance, as the Chang court noted, allowing the government to circumvent the plain terms of a plea agreement “would surely lead to sandbagging of many non-citizen criminal defendants.”  Id. at 1192.  Indeed, uncertainty on whether the loss amounts specified in a plea agreement will control in subsequent removal proceedings does not benefit either party.  Defendants may be less willing to enter into plea agreements in light of the uncertainty of their effect in any future immigration proceedings.  As a result, the government may be forced to expend unnecessary time and resources litigating and appealing cases that otherwise could have been resolved through a plea agreement.  The better result here, and one consistent with the statute, is that the court should focus narrowly on the loss amounts that are particularly tethered to convicted counts alone.[788]

[778] Chang v. INS, 307 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. Oct. 11, 2002) (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).  Cf. Ferreira v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. Dec. 1, 2004) (California conviction of welfare fraud, in violation of Welf. & Inst. Code § 10980(c)(2), constitutes an offense involving fraud or deceit with a loss to the victim in excess of $10,000, for purposes of qualifying as an aggravated felony as defined under INA § 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) triggering deportation, where the plea agreement — part of the record of conviction — sets the amount of restitution at $22,305 and where the California courts are required under California Penal Code § 1202.04(f) to set restitution based on the loss to the victim).

[779] Ibid.

[780] Alaka v. Attorney General, 456 F.3d 88 (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; 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), the immigration court erred in considering amount of intended loss for all of the charges – including dismissed counts – rather than limiting loss to victim analysis to the loss for the single count of conviction).

[781] See § 16.30, supra.

[782] 18 U.S.C. § 1344(1).

[783] Khalayleh v. INS, 287 F.3d 978, 980 (10th Cir. Apr. 23, 2002).

[784] James v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 505 (5th Cir. Sept. 5, 2006) (although 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, 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, and the plea agreement and indictment did not specify a different loss).

[785] Obashohan v. United States Att’y Gen., 479 F.3d 785, 790 (11th Cir. Feb. 23, 2007) (here “[t]here was no basis in this record from which the IJ could have found by ‘clear, unequivocal and convincing evidnece’ that the restitution order was based on convicted or admitted conduct.”), citing Khalayleh, supra.

[786] Knutsen v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 733 (7th Cir. Nov. 22, 2005).

[787] Id. at 739.

[788] Id. at 739-740.

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).

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.")

Fourth Circuit

AGGRAVATED FELONY - CRIME OF VIOLENCE - MALICIOUS BURNING OF PROPERTY CONSTITUTES CRIME OF VIOLENCE
Mbea v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 852346 (4th Cir. March 22, 2007) (District of Columbia conviction of malicious burning of property, in violation of D.C.Code 22-401 (1994) [current version at D.C.Code Ann. 22-301 (2000)], with an indeterminate sentence from 18 months to five years imprisonment, constitutes a crime of violence, under 18 U.S.C. 16(a), and therefore an aggravated felony which renders him statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal under INA 240(A)(a) and for a hardship waiver under INA 212(h)(1)(B), since: "Fire is itself a physical force. Indeed, the Oxford English Dictionary defines "physical force" as, inter alia, "an influence acting within the physical world, a force of nature." See Oxford English Dictionary (2003). Fire is nothing if not a "force of nature" that exerts an influence "within the physical world." For fire not only has the power to provide warmth and light, but also the power to destroy."); see United States v. Mitchell, 23 F.3d 1, 2 n.3 (1st Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (holding that federal arson as set forth in 18 U.S.C. 844(i) is a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. 3156(a)(4)); United States v. Marzullo, 780 F.Supp. 658, 662 & n. 7 (W.D.Mo. 1991) (same); United States v. Shaker, 665 F.Supp. 698, 702 n. 4 (N.D.Ind. 1987) (same). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/4th/051204p.pdf

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)).

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).

SENTENCE " FEDERAL " RESTITUTION AGGRAVATED FELONY " FRAUD OFFENSES " LOSS AMOUNT " RESTITUTION
SENTENCE " FEDERAL " RESTITUTION AGGRAVATED FELONY " FRAUD OFFENSES " LOSS AMOUNT " RESTITUTION United States v. Tsosie, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 1758785 (9th Cir. May 10, 2011) (vacating district courts judgment ordering restitution for expenses incurred by victim's mother in case involving abusive sexual contact in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2244(a)(1), as the award was issued in violation of the procedural and evidentiary requirements of 18 U.S.C. 3664).

AGGRAVATED FELONY - FRAUD OFFENSES
United States v. Batson, 608 F.3d 630 (9th Cir. Jun. 21, 2010) (under federal law, 18 U.S.C. 3663(a)(1)(A), restitution ordered by the court must relate only to the offense of conviction when that offense does not involve an element of a scheme, conspiracy, or pattern of criminal activity), following Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411, 110 S.Ct. 1979, 109 L.Ed.2d 408 (1990).

AGGRAVATED FELONY - FRAUD OFFENSES - FALSE STATEMENT
Kawashima v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. Jul. 1, 2008) (per curiam) (federal conviction for subscribing to a false statement on a tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7206(1), with plea agreement stipulating that the "total actual tax loss" for the purpose of determining his offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines was $245,126, did not categorically constitute a fraud aggravated felony, under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), since the statute of conviction is entirely missing an element requiring proof of a monetary loss in excess of $10,000; the court may not consult the record of conviction because the statute is not divisible), following Navarro-Lopez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (when the crime of conviction is missing an element of the generic crime altogether, we can never find that "a jury was actually required to find all the elements of" the generic crime.").

AGGRAVATED FELONY - FRAUD OFFENSES - FALSE STATEMENT
Kawashima v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. Jul. 1, 2008) (per curiam) (federal conviction for aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false tax return qualify as "aggravated felonies" return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7206(2), did not categorically constitute a fraud aggravated felony, under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), since the statute of conviction is entirely missing an element requiring proof of a monetary loss in excess of $10,000; the court may not consult the record of conviction because the statute is not divisible), following Navarro-Lopez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (when the crime of conviction is missing an element of the generic crime altogether, we can never find that "a jury was actually required to find all the elements of" the generic crime.").

AGGRAVATED FELONY - FRAUD OFFENSE - TAX OFFENSE NOT LISTED IN (M)(ii) CAN CONSTITUTE FRAUD OFFENSE AGGRAVATED FELONY UNDER (M)(i)
Kawashima v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 2702330 (9th Cir. Sept. 18, 2007) (federal conviction for subscribing to a false statement on a tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7206(1), qualifies as an "aggravated felony" under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), despite argument that (M)(i) is inapplicable in this case, reasoning that (M)(ii)'s specific reference to 7201 indicates Congress's intent to exclude all federal tax offenses from the definition of aggravated felonies under the more general subsection (M)(i)).

AGGRAVATED FELONIES - TAX OFFENSES - CONVICTIONS OF VIOLATING STATUTES OTHER THAN 26 U.S.C. 7201 CANNOT CONSTITUTE TAX OFFENSE AGGRAVATED FELONIES UNDER INA 101(a)(43)(M)(ii)
Kawashima v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___, ___, n.3, 2007 WL 2702330 (9th Cir. Sept. 18, 2007) (federal convictions for subscribing to a false statement on a tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7206(1), and aiding and abetting in the preparation of a false tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7206(2), cannot qualify as an "aggravated felony" under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(ii), because that provision is limited to tax offenses in violation of 7201); following United States v. Roselli, 366 F.3d 58, 62 n.5 (1st Cir. 2004).

AGGRAVATED FELONY - FRAUD OFFENSE - LOSS - DEFENDANT WHO PAYS LOSS DOWN UNDER $10,000 HAS NOT AVOIDED A LOSS AMOUNT SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE AN AGGRAVATED FELONY
Kharana v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 1280 (9th Cir. May 29, 2007) (noncitizen who pleads guilty to fraud in misappropriating more than $10,000 but later repays the entire loss, so the victims have been made whole, has not "paid down" the "loss to the victims" below the statutory threshold so that her offense no longer qualifies as an aggravated felony fraud offense, under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i)).

Lower Courts of Ninth Circuit

AGGRAVATED FELONY - FRAUD OFFENSES - LOSS - CALIFORNIA RESTITUTION CANNOT COMPENSATE VICTIM FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING
In re Imran Q., 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 233, Previously published at: 149 Cal.App.4th 581, (April 9, 2007) No. B188613 (reversing order that defendant pay close to $18,000 in restitution for injuring the victim in a hit and run, where trial court failed to recognize that some portion of the victim's civil settlement with defendant likely included compensation for the victim's pain and suffering, and the record does not show the parties or court attempted to allocate the settlement between economic damages supporting restitution and pain and suffering, which do not support restitution).

Tenth Circuit

AGGRAVATED FELONY - FRAUD OFFENSES - LOSS TO THE VICTIM - SENTENCE RELATED MATERIAL
Hamilton v. Holder, 584 F.3d 1284 (10th Cir. Oct. 27, 2009) (Immigration Judge properly examined sentencing-related material to determine the amount of loss to the victim for aggravated felony fraud purposes).

Eleventh Circuit

AGGRAVATED FELONY - FRAUD OFFENSE - LOSS TO THE VICTIM - RESTITUTION ORDER BASED ON CONDUCT NOT CHARGED, PROVEN, OR ADMITTED, AND WHICH WAS ISSUED BY THE CRIMINAL COURT UNDER A LOWER PREPONDERANCE STANDARD OF PROOF, WAS STANDING ALONE AN INSUFFICIENT BASIS TO SUPPORT AN IMMIGRATION JUDGE'S FINDING OF LOSS TO THE VICTIM IN EXCESS OF $10,000
Obasohan v. U.S. Attorney General, ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 548359 (11th Cir. Feb. 23, 2007) (federal conviction of conspiracy to produce, use and traffic in counterfeit access devices, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1029(b)(2), with a restitution order for fraudulent use of other credit cards during the course of the conspiracy which had caused losses in excess of $37,000 to three financial institutions, issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3663, did not constitute an aggravated felony fraud offense, under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), for purposes of removal, because the restitution order, standing alone, had been issued by the sentencing judge under a preponderance standard, and the immigration court was required to make a loss to the victim finding by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence, and the restitution order, which in this case was the only document that made reference to any loss, was based on factual findings regarding conduct and loss amounts that were not charged, proven or admitted).

AGGRAVATED FELONY - FRAUD OFFENSE - LOSS TO THE VICTIM - RESTITUTION ORDER BASED ON CONDUCT NOT CHARGED, PROVEN, OR ADMITTED, AND WHICH WAS ISSUED BY THE CRIMINAL COURT UNDER A LOWER PREPONDERANCE STANDARD OF PROOF, WAS STANDING ALONE AN INSUFFICIENT BASIS TO SUPPORT AN IMMIGRATION JUDGE'S FINDING OF LOSS TO THE VICTIM IN EXCESS OF $10,000
Obasohan v. U.S. Attorney General, ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 548359 (11th Cir. Feb. 23, 2007) (federal conviction of conspiracy to produce, use and traffic in counterfeit access devices, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1029(b)(2), with a restitution order for fraudulent use of other credit cards during the course of the conspiracy which had caused losses in excess of $37,000 to three financial institutions, issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3663, did not constitute an aggravated felony fraud offense, under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), for purposes of removal, because the restitution order, standing alone, had been issued by the sentencing judge under a preponderance standard, and the immigration court was required to make a loss to the victim finding by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence, and the restitution order, which in this case was the only document that made reference to any loss, was based on factual findings regarding conduct and loss amounts that were not charged, proven or admitted).

Other

CAL CRIM DEF " AGGRAVATED FELONY " FRAUD " MATERIALITY REQUIREMENT " PRACTICE ADVISORY
Based on the Supreme Court's definition of fraud and deceit in Kawashima v. Holder, 132 S.Ct. 1166 (Feb. 21, 2012), there is a reasonably good argument that conviction of any false statement offense that lacks materiality of a false statement as an essential element does not constitute a fraud or deceit aggravated felony, under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i). Kawashima, supra, at ___ (We conclude that Mrs. Kawashima's conviction establishes that, by knowingly and willfully assisting her husband's filing of a materially false tax return, Mrs. Kawashima also committed a felony that involved deceit.)(emphasis added). California Penal Code 550(a) (false financial statements on an insurance claim) does not have an express statutory materiality requirement, but simply requires a false or fraudulent claim. Thanks to Dan Kesselbrenner. Cal Crim Def 13.1,

AGGRAVATED FELONY - FRAUD OFFENSES - LOSS AMOUNT - INTENDED LOSS - GUIDELINES ARGUMENT THAT FAIR MARKET VALUE OF ANY SECURITY MUST BE DEDUCTED IN COMPUTING INTENDED LOSS
The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines provide special rules for calculating mortgage fraud loss. In any case in which the loss results from a secured loan, the fair market value of the security is deducted from the loss. In essence, for secured loan cases, the Guidelines recognize that where there is a security, the defendant cannot have "intended" a loss without regard to the value of the security. See USSG 2B1.1, Application Note 3(E). The same argument could be made with respect to calculating the amount of intended loss in aggravated felony fraud cases under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i).

AGGRAVATED FELONY - FRAUD OFFENSES - LOSS TO THE VICTIM
Evan Jenness, Gaining the Upper Hand in Arguing Loss in Securities Fraud Cases, The Champion (Nat'l Ass'n of Crim. Defense Lawyers); http://www.jennesslaw.com/images/Gaining_the_Upper_Hand_in_Arguing_Loss_in_Securities_Fraud_Cases_-_The_Champion.pdf. (the government must prove a causal connection between the clients conduct and "loss" under the USSG, and that "loss" should be reduced for factors not proximately caused by, or reasonably foreseeable to, the client -- like market swings); see, e.g., United States v. Crandall, 525 F.3d 907, 912 (9th Cir. 2008) (court commented on the "volatile nature of the real estate market," which it characterized as "wholly independent of Defendants culpability."); United States v. Rutkoske, 506 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2007) (court must consider factors other than fraud that might have contributed to stock price decline when determining loss), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2488 (2008); United States v. Olis, 429 F.3d 540, 545 (5th Cir. 2005) (defendant responsible only for losses caused directly by offense conduct); cf. United States v. Nacchio, 573 F.3d 1062 (10th Cir. 2009)(considering "gain" for purposes of insider trading sentencing under former USSG 2F1.2, and discussing how to disentangle what is caused by wrongdoing from what is not).

BIBLIO " AGGRAVATED FELONY " FRAUD OFFENSES " LOSS OVER $10,000
Ellis, Steer, & Allenbaugh, At a Loss for Justice: Federal Sentencing for Economic Offenses, American Bar Association, CRIMINAL JUSTICE Magazine, http://bit.ly/ktJJj2