Term: 2008
Docket: 08-495
Manoj Nijhawan v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General
- Pro
08-495 NIJHAWAN V. HOLDER DECISION BELOW: 523 F.3d 387 LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: “WHETHER PETITIONER'S CONVICTION FOR CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT BANK FRAUD, MAIL FRAUD, AND WIRE FRAUD QUALIFIES AS A CONVICTION FOR CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT AN ‘OFFENSE THAT INVOLVES FRAUD OR DECEIT IN WHICH THE LOSS TO THE VICTIM OR VICTIMS EXCEEDS $10,000,’ 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M) (i) AND (U), WHERE PETITIONER STIPULATED FOR SENTENCING PURPOSES THAT THE VICTIM LOSS ASSOCIATED WITH HIS FRAUD OFFENSE EXCEEDED $100 MILLION, AND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND RESTITUTION ORDER CALCULATED TOTAL VICTIM LOSS AS MORE THAN $680 MILLION.” EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE. CERT. GRANTED 1/16/2009 QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the penalty of life time banishment for conviction of an aggravated felony may be imposed upon a lawful permanent resident under Section 101(a)(43)(M)(i) of the Immigration & Nationality Act of 1952 as amended (the ''Act''), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43) (M)(i) when he was not convicted of the required loss? Whether the rule of lenity or narrow construction should be applied to resolve an ambiguity in a deportation statute created by both the dissenting opinion below and well-reasoned decisions from other Circuits including the Circuit where the alien's conviction occurred? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 06-3948
In the case of Manoj Nijhawan v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that a noncitizen can be deported for an aggravated felony conviction involving fraud or deceit with loss to victims exceeding $10,000 even if the criminal statute did not require such a finding and it was determined in separate proceedings. The court held that this provision applies to convictions where judges have made explicit findings about loss amount during sentencing or other proceedings related to punishment - regardless of whether those findings were necessary under law defining crime's elements. This decision came after Manoj Nijhawan, an immigrant from India who had been convicted on multiple counts of mail fraud, bank fraud and money laundering resulting in losses over $100 million argued against his deportation order claiming that none of his individual offenses involved losses exceeding statutory threshold.
In the dissenting opinion for Manoj Nijhawan v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Justice Samuel Alito argued that the majority's interpretation of immigration law was incorrect and could lead to arbitrary results. He disagreed with the court's decision to deport Mr. Nijhawan based on a prior conviction involving fraud or deceit in which loss exceeded $10,000 - a criterion for deportation under US immigration law - because his criminal sentence did not specify an amount of loss exceeding this threshold. According to Justice Alito, it is inappropriate and inconsistent with legal principles to make such determinations about monetary losses outside of a formal judicial proceeding where evidence can be presented and challenged by both parties.
