Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Etetim David James, a citizen and native of Nigeria, obtained lawful permanent resident status in September 1987. In March 2000, James pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and abetting bank fraud, involving a $9,500 credit union transaction. James was ordered to serve a 24-month sentence and to pay $129,066.60 in restitution. In October 2001, as a result of James’s conviction, the Immigration and Naturalization Service filed a notice to appear under 8 U.S.C. �1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) charging James with deportability as an aggravated felon. The INS charged that James’s prior conviction constituted a crime involving “fraud or deceit,” where the loss to the victims exceeded $10,000. The immigration judge (IJ) agreed with James that the INS had failed to demonstrate that the loss to the victims exceeded $10,000, since he pleaded guilty to a single count of only $9,500. Thus, the IJ terminated removal proceedings against James. The government appealed, arguing that the restitution amount constituted the proper measure of loss to the victims. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed the IJ’s calculation of the loss, using instead the amount of restitution. The BIA ordered James removed to Nigeria. HOLDING:Dismissed in part and remanded in part. While noting it lacked jurisdiction where a petitioner is found deportable for committing an aggravated felony, the court first held that it retained jurisdiction to examine and decide whether the charged crime constituted an aggravated felony. Next, the court held that the IJ did not err in ruling that aiding and abetting bank fraud involves fraud or deceit because �1344, the underlying offense, necessarily involves fraud. Concurring with the BIA decision, the court then held that James’ conviction satisfied the requirement to determine an aggravated felony for deportation purposes that the loss to the victims exceed $10,000. Following this analysis, the court declared that it lacked jurisdiction to grant review of the removal decision on this ground. Finally, the court reversed the BIA’s deportation order, holding that such orders may issue only from an immigration judge OPINION:Higginbotham, J.; Garwood, Higginbotham, and Clement, J.J.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.