United States v.
Villanueva-Gaxiola, 119 F.Supp.2d 1185 (D.Kan. Sept. 26, 2000)
(California conviction for unlawful possession of short-barreled
shotgun, in violation of California Penal Code § 12020, was
not an aggravated felony under INA § 101(a)(43)(E)(iii), 8
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(E)(iii) as an offense described in 26
U.S.C. § 5861 or 18 U.S.C.

Matter of Vasquez-Muniz,
23 I. & N. Dec. 207 (BIA Jan. 15, 2002) (California conviction
of possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of California
Penal Code § 12021(a)(l) is an aggravated felony under INA
§ 101(a)(43)(E)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii) because
it is "described in" 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(l), even
though the state statute lacks the jurisdictional element
required by the federal statute).

Kuhali
v. Reno, 266 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. Sept. 27, 2001) (federal conviction
for conspiracy to export firearms without license, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 22 U.S.C. 2778, constitutes an aggravated
felony under INA § 101(a)(43)(C), (U), 8 U.S.C.

Richards v. Ashcroft, 400
F.3d 125 (2d Cir. Mar. 3, 2005) (Connecticut conviction of
possession of a forged document with intent to defraud, deceive,
or injure, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-139, is
"an offense relating to . . . forgery" within the
meaning of INA § 101(a)(43)(R), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(R),
and is therefore an aggravated felony for deportation purposes
under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C.

Bobb v. Att'y Gen. of the United States, __ F.3d __
(9th Cir. Aug. 3, 2006) (federal conviction of check forgery,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 510(a)(2), involving a check
in an amount over $10,000 is an aggravated felony fraud offense
under INA § 101(a)(43)(M)(i) for immigration purposes).

Conteh v. Gonzales, __ F.3d __ (1st Cir. Aug. 22, 2006) (Federal
conviction for conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371, where
the underlying offense was a violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1344 [bank fraud] with a loss in excess of $10,000, is an
aggravated felony fraud offense for immigration purposes).

Sui v. INS,
250 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. May 11, 2001) (federal conviction of
violating 18 U.S.C. § 513(a), possession of counterfeit securities
with intent to deceive, does not constitute a deportable aggravated
felony as a conviction of an offense involving fraud, under
INA § 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), since
the loss to the victims as a result of defendants actions
did not exceed $10,000).

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).

Nugent v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d
162 (3d Cir. May 7, 2004) (Pennsylvania conviction of theft
by deception, in violation of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 3922(a),
with an indeterminate sentence from a minimum of six months
to a maximum of 23 months, does not trigger removal as an
aggravated felony fraud conviction under INA § 101(a)(43)(M)(i),
8 U.S.C.

United States v. Meza-Corrales, 183
F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. July 16, 1999) (Arizona conviction for
solicitation to possess a controlled substance, in violation
of ARS § 13-1002; 13-3408(A)(1) and (B)(1), is a "felony
drug offense" for purposes of federal drug sentencing
enhancement under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)), distinguishing
Coronado-Durazo v. INS, 123 F.3d 1322 (9th Cir. 1997).