Moore v. Ashcroft, 251 F.3d
919 (11th Cir. May 14, 2001) (federal conviction of misapplication
of bank funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 656, constituted
aggravated felony under INA § 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. §
1101(a)(43)(M)(i) for removal purposes, since it necessarily
involves fraud or deceit and loss exceeded $10,000).

Matter of SS, 21 I. & N. Dec. 900
(BIA May 6, 1997) (Iowa conviction for terrorism under section
708.6 of the Iowa Code is a felony involving a substantial
risk that physical force may be used against the victim, and
therefore constitutes a "crime of violence" as defined
in 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), and therefore an aggravated felony within
the meaning of INA § 101(a)(43)(F), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(F)).

United States v. Martinez-Mata, 393 F.3d
625 (5th Cir. Dec. 10, 2004) (Texas conviction of retaliation
under Texas Penal Code § 36.06 is not a crime of violence
for illegal re-entry sentencing purposes since it does not
have, as an element, the use, attempted use, or threatened
use of physical force).

Patel v. Ashcroft, 294 F.3d 465 (3d Cir. June 20,
2002) (federal conviction of harboring an undocumented noncitizen,
in violation of INA § 101(a)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A),
met the definition of an "aggravated felony" under
INA § 101(a)(43)(N), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(N), for immigration
purposes, despite the fact that defendant had no part in the
harbored persons illegal admission or entry).

United States v. Solis-Campozano, 312 F.3d
164 (5th Cir. Nov. 12, 2002) (federal conviction for transporting
aliens within the United States, in violation of INA § 274(a)(1)(A)(ii),
8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), was an "alien smuggling offense"
within meaning of the Sentencing Guidelines for purpose of
constituting an aggravated felony to enhance a sentence under
U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(vii) for illegal re-entry).

Ruiz-Romero v. Reno, 205 F.3d 837 (5th Cir.
Mar. 3, 2000) (federal conviction of transporting illegal
noncitizens from one point to another within the United States
without crossing a national border, in violation of INA §
274(a)(1)(A)(ii), 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), triggered
deportation as an aggravated felony, since the parenthetical
phrase "(relating to alien smuggling)" found in
INA § 101(a)(43)(N), 8 U.S.C.

Rivera-Sanchez v. Reno, 198 F.3d 545
(5th Cir. Dec. 30, 1999) (federal illegal entry conviction
of violating INA § 275(a), 8 U.S.C. 1325(a) is outside the
ambit of INA § 101(a)(43)(N), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(N), which
is explicitly confined to convictions under INA § 274(a),
8 U.S.C. § 1324(a), and so is not an aggravated felony under
that theory for immigration purposes).

United States v. Monjaras-Castaneda, 190 F.3d
326 (5th Cir. Sept. 16, 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1194,
120 S.Ct. 1254 (2000) (federal conviction of transporting
illegal noncitizens from one point to another within the United
States without crossing a national border, in violation of
INA § 274(a)(1)(A)(ii), 8 U.S.C.

Tapucu v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d
736 (6th Cir. Mar. 9, 2005) (federal conviction of driving
an undocumented noncitizen to the United States border, and
presenting him to the immigration authorities upon inspection,
not knowing that the noncitizen is not entitled to enter the
United States, at least on a temporary basis, does not constitute
"alien smuggling").

Gavilan-Cuate v. Yetter, 276 F.3d 418 (8th Cir.
Jan. 9, 2002) (federal conviction of conspiracy to transport
and harbor illegal aliens, in violation of INA § 274(a)(1)(A)(ii)
and (iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (iii), constituted
aggravated felony under INA § 101(a)(43)(N), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(N),
despite parenthetical mentioning smuggling).