Pena-Rosario v. Reno, 83
F.Supp.2d 349, 366 n.12 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2000) (federal conviction
for falsely making "document prescribed by statute or
regulation as evidence of authorized stay or employment in
the United States," in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a),
constituted an "aggravated felony" within meaning
of INA § 101(a)(43)(P), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(P), for purposes
of deportation).

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).

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)).

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).

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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).