Gourche v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 5443657 (7th Cir. Nov. 9, 2011) (federal conviction of conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 1546(a), fraud in immigration documents, categorically triggers deportation under INA 237(a)(3)(B)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(3)(B)(iii); the parenthetical language (relating to fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other entry documents) is merely descriptive).

NOTE: The court stated that, In ascertaining the meaning of a statute, we look to the language and the structure of the statutory provisions. Burma v. Holder, 640 F.3d 749, 751 (7th Cir.2011); United States v. Webber, 536 F.3d 584, 593 (7th Cir.2008). In this case, both the language of the parenthetical phrase and the structure of the provision demonstrate that Congress intended only to provide a convenient shorthand description of 1546 (prohibiting fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents) rather than to limit the class of aliens deportable under 1227(a)(3)(B)(iii).); see Patel v. Ashcroft, 294 F.3d 465, 470"71 (3d Cir.2002), superseded on other grounds by statute, REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109"13, div. B, 106, 119 Stat. 231; United States v. Galindo"Gallegos, 244 F.3d 728, 733"34 (9th Cir.2001) (as amended); United States v. Salas"Mendoza, 237 F.3d 1246, 1247"48 (10th Cir.2001); United States v. Monjaras"Castaneda, 190 F.3d 326, 330"31 (5th Cir.1999); but see Evangelista v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 145, 152 (2d Cir.2004) (declining to apply the Fifth Circuit's approach in Monjaras"Castaneda to analysis of 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(ii)).