2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-14-2010 

# D ext e r Ro dney v

. Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2043

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " D ext e r Rodney v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 619. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/619

### NO T P RE CE DENT I AL UN I TE D S TA TE S C OU RT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT

_____________ No. 09- 2043

_____________ D E X T E R R O D N E Y , Peti ti on er v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

Re s ponde nt Pe t i t i on for

Re vi e w of an Or de r

of the Un it ed Stat es Departm ent of Justi ce B o ardo f Immig ratio nAp p eals ( BI A No. A045- 307- 175) I mmi gr at i on Judge : Honor abl e W a l t e r A. Durl i ng Subm itte d U nd er

Th ird C ircuit

LA R 3 4.1(a) Sept e m be r 13, 2010 B ef o re: REN D E L L , F IS H E R an dG A R T H , C ircu it Ju d g es. ( Fi l e d: Sept e m

be r 14, 2010) OPINI ON OF THE COURT REND EL L, Circ uit Jud ge. P e tit io n e r D e x ter R o d n e yp e tit io n s f o r re v iew o f

a f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l. W e w ill denyt he pet i t i on.

### 2 I. R odney , a nat i ve and c i t i zen of G uy ana, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es as a l aw ful perm anentr es i denti n February1996. O n February11, 2004, a j ur yi n t he U . S. D i s t r i ct C our tfort he Sout hern D i s t r i ctof N ew Y or k found R odneygui l t yof bank f r aud, pur s uant t o 18 U . S. C . § 1344, and theftof governm entpr oper t y , pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 641, for hi s t heftof over$30, 000 i n U . S. T r eas ur ychec ks , w hi ch he s ubs equent l ydepos i t ed at Fl eetB ank. O n M ay14, 2004, U . S. D i s t r i ctJ udge V i ct orM arr er o s ent ence d R odney pr i nci pal l yt o fi ve mont hs ’ i m pr i s onm entand or der ed hi m t o payr es t i tut i on t o Fl eetB ank i n t he amountof $23, 450. 21. O n Ju ly1 2 , 2 0 0 7 , the G o v ern m en t serve d R o d n eyw ith a N o ti ce to A p p ea r, char gi ng t hathe w as r emovabl e pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) beca us e he ha d c o mmi t t e d a n “ a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n y , ” a s t h a tt e r m i s d e f i n e d b y8 U. S . C. § 1101( a) ( 43) ( M ) ( i ) , s i nce he w as convi ct ed of ba nk fr aud and “ t he amountof the funds exce eded $10, 000. ” O n N ovember6, 2007, an I m m i gr at i on J udge or der ed R odney r emoved. R odneyappea l ed t o t he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s , ar gui ng t hatt he G o v e rn m e n t c o u ld n o t p ro v e th a t a lo s s o f $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 o r m o re re s u lte d f ro m h is b a n k f

ra u d . O n M ar ch 6, 2008, t he B I A found thatR odney ’ s form ercouns el w as i neff ect i ve i n fai l i ng to c h a lle n g e th e a g g ra v a te d f e lo n yc h a rg e , a n d g ra n te d R o d n e y ’s m o tio n to re m a n d . O n A pr i l 1, 2008, R odneyappea r ed bef or e the I J and deni ed the cha r ge of

### 3

r emovabi l i t y . T o s uppor ti t s cl ai m t hatR odneyhad ca us ed a l os s of m or e than $10, 000, th e G o v e rn m e n t in tro d u c e d th e p re -se n ten c e in v e stig a tio n re p o rt (“ P S R ” ) f ro m h is cr i m i nal pr ocee di ng, w hi ch s how ed a l os s t o Fl eetB ank of $23, 450. 21, as w el l as t he cr i m i nal j udgm ent , w hi ch r efl ect ed a r es t i tut i on or derfort he s ame am ount . H ow ever , t he IJ h e ld th a t th is d id n o t co n stitu te s u f f icie n t ev id e n c e o f

th e a m o u n t o f

lo ss , b e c a u se it d id n o t i n d icate h o w Ju d g e M arrero h ad ca lculated the re sti tuti o n aw ard . T h e IJ the ref o re dis m i ssed the rem ov abil i t ycharge an d term i nated the rem ov al proceed i ng s. T he G overnm entappea l ed t o t he B I A . C i t i ng ourdeci s i on i n Ni j haw an v. A t t or ney G ener al , 523 F. 3d 387 ( 3d C i r . 2008) , t he B I A found thatt he G overnm enthad i nt r oduced adequa t e evi dence of the l os s caus ed byR odney ’ s conductand s us t ai ned the appe al on J ul y28, 2008. T he B I A not ed thatt he PSR s how ed thatR odneyhad depos i t ed s t ol en c h e c k s to talin g $ 3 7 ,0 8 0 .2 1 in to h is F lee t ac c o u n t, an d th a t th e se c h e c k s c a u se d F lee t to s uffe ra l os s of $23, 450. 21. T he B I A al s o not ed thatJ udge M arr er o had or der ed R odney t o pay$23, 450. 21 i n r es t i tut i on. Fur t herm or e, t he B I A hel d t hatt he t ot al i t yof the evi dence , i ncl udi ng t he cr i m i nal compl ai nt , t he j udgm entof convi ct i on, t he PSR , and the r es t i tut i on or deres t abl i s hed thatt he l os s w as connec t ed t o R odney ’ s bank fr aud convi ct i on. T he B I A t her efor e r emanded t he ca s e t o t he I J forpr ocee di ngs cons i s t ent w ith its o p in io n . O n S ep tem b er 1 6 , 2 0 0 8 , R o d n eyap p ea red b ef o re the IJ an d arg u ed that the B IA h a d n o t ad d re ss e d h is a rg u m e n t th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t h a d f a iled to sh o w th a t th e lo ss to

### 4

Fl eetB ank r es ul t ed fr om hi s bank fr aud, r athert han fr om hi s t heftof governm ent pr oper t y . H e furt herar gued thathe had notbeen gi ven an opportuni t yt o ar gue that Ni j haw an w as i nappl i cabl e t o hi s cas e. I n a rul i ng i s s ued i n O ct ober2008, t he I J decl i ned t o perm i tR odneyt o m ake f ur t herar gum ent s beca us e the B I A had al r eadycons i der ed Ni j haw an , and or der ed R odneyr emoved t o G uy ana. R odneyappea l ed t o t he B I A agai n, r ai s i ng t he s ame ar gum ent s t hathe had j us tpr es ent ed t o t he I J . O n M ar ch 12, 2009, t he B I A di s m i s s ed R odney ’ s appea l , ci t i ng t he r eas oni ng fr om i t s pr evi ous deci s i on. T he B IA a lso in d ica ted th a t, ev e n if R o d n e yh a d n o t p re v io u slyh a d a n a d e q u a te o p p o rtu n ity t o ar gue the i m pactof Ni j haw an , “h e h a s n o w su b m itt e d h is a rg u m e n ts in th is re g a rd to t he B oar d. ” A pp. 4. R o d n e yn o w s e e k s re v ie w o f th e B IA ’s d e c is io n . II. R odneychal l enges t he B I A ’ s det erm i nat i on t hathe ca us ed a l os s of m or e than $10, 000, w hi ch w as nece s s aryi n or dert o fi nd t hathe had be en convi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l onyunder8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 43) ( M ) ( i ) . “W hether[a] convi ct i on cons t i tut es an aggr avat ed fe l onypr es ent s a ques t i on of l aw w i t hi n ours ubj ectm at t er juri sd ict ion o v er w h ich w e e x erc ise p lena ryrev iew . . . . W e d o n o t def er to the B IA ’s det erm i nat i on of w hethera cr i m e cons t i tut es an aggr avat ed fe l ony . ” Henr y v. B ur eau of I m m igr at i on & Cust om s E nf or cem ent , 493 F. 3d 303, 306 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( ci t at i ons o m itt e d ). In a p p ly in g th e $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 th re sh o ld , w e m u st c o n sid e r “ th e sp e c if ic

### For thi s r e a s on, we wi l lde ny the Gove rnm e nt ’ s m ot i on t o di s mi s s the pe t i t i on 1 

### for l a c k of juri s di c t i on. 5 ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng an off ender ’ s comm i s s i on of a f r aud and de cei tcr i m e on a s peci fi c occ as i on. ” Ni

j haw an v. H

older , 12 9 S . C t . 22 94 , 23 02 (2009 ). W e exerci se j ur i s di ct i on under8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) t o r evi ew “ques t i ons of l aw , ” i ncl udi ng t he q u e s tio n o f

w h e th e r a c o n v ic tio n c o n s titu te s a n a g g ra v a te d f e lo n y . Henry , 493 F. 3d at 306. 1 W e agr ee w i t h t he B I A t hatt he G overnm entadequa t el ypr oved thatR odney ’ s bank fr aud cons t i tut ed an “ aggr avat ed fe l ony . ” A ccor di ng t o t he PSR , R odneydepos i t ed at l eas t47 fr audul ent l yobt ai ned che cks atFl eetB ank, and “[ t ] he combi ned val ue of the c h e c k s to tale d $ 3 7 ,0 8 0 .2 1 .” A p p . 3 6 2 . T w o o f th e se c h e c k s, w h ich to g e th e r w e re w o rth $13, 630, nevercl ear ed, w hi ch meantt hat“the vi ct i m of thi s offe ns e, Fl eetB ank, s uffe r ed l os s es of $23, 450. 21. ” I d. R o d n e yd id n o t ch a llen g e th e c o n ten t o f th e P S R a t h is s ent enci ng befor e J udge M arr er o, w ho t hen or der ed hi m t o payr es t i tut i on t o Fl eetB ank i n t he amountof $23, 450. 21. A pp. 394. T hi s evi dence i s s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h t hat R o d n eyca u sed an ac tual loss to F leet B an k o f m o re tha n $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 , that h e w as th ere fo re c o n v icte d o f

a n “ a g g ra v a ted f

e lo n y ” u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 3 )(D ), an d th a t h e is there fo re rem o v ab le un d er 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 7 (a)(2)(A )(i ii ). A lth o u g h R o d n e yv ig o ro u slyre sis ts th is s tra ig h tf o rw a rd c o n c lu sio n , n o n e o f h is ar gum ent s have mer i t . Fi r s t , he poi nt s t o an i ncons i s t encyi n t he PSR , w hi ch des cr i bes

### 6

th e n u m b e r o f

f ra u d u len tlyc h e c k s h e d e p o site d a s b o th 4 7 a n d 4 9 . H o w e v e r, R o d n e yd id notchal l enge thi s fi ndi ng befor e J udge M arr er o, and thi s i ncons i s t encydoes not underm i ne the evi dence t hatR odneycaus ed l os s es i n exce s s of $10, 000. Second, he ar gues t hata r es t i tut i on or deral one i s notnece s s ar i l ys uffi ci entevi dence of the amountof lo ss . A lth o u g h th a t m a yb e tru e , the c o m b in a tio n o f th e P S R a n d th e re stitu tio n o rd e r in this case , esp ec ial lyin the ab sen ce o f a n yco n tr aryev iden ce p o inti n g to a s m all er loss, are s u f f ic ie n t to s u p p o rt th e f

in d in g th a t R o d n e yc a u s e d a lo s s o f $ 2 3 ,4 5 0 .2 1 . Ni

j haw an , 129 S. C t . at2903. T hi r d, he ar gues t hathe di d notpl ead gui l t y , di d notadmi tt he ac cur acyof th e P S R , a n d d id n o t o th e rw is e a d m it th a t h e h a d c a u s e d a lo s s in e x c e s s o f $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 . H o w e v e r, h e c ites n o a u th o rityf o r th e p ro p o sitio n th a t su c h a d m iss io n s a re n e c e ss a ryto th e f in d in g a s to th e lo s s a m o u n t. Four t h, R odneyar gues t hatt her e i s no evi dence t hatt he pec uni aryl os s caus ed by h is c ri m e s re s u lte d f

ro m h is b a n k f

ra u d , ra th e r t h a n h is th e f t o f g o v e rn m e n t p ro p e rt y . T hi s cont ent i on i s al s o w i t houtm er i t . T he l os s t o Fl eetB ank unques t i onabl yr es ul t ed f ro m h is b a n k f

ra u d --i.e., h is “ sc h e m e . . . to d e f ra u d a f in a n c ial in stitu tio n ; o r . . . to obt ai n anyof the money s . . . [of] a fi nanci al i ns t i tut i on, bym eans of fa l s e orfr audul ent pr et ens es , ” 18 U . S. C . § 1344. A l t hough hi s addi t i onal cr i m i nal act i ons i n s t eal i ng t he U .S . T re a su ryc h e c k s, in v io latio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 6 4 1 , m a yh a v e e n a b led h im to perpetr at e thi s fr aud on the bank, t he B I A w as notr equi r ed t o di s s ectt he ca us al chai n as i nt r i cat el yas R odneyw oul d l i ke. M or eover , t he onl ys ens i bl e i nt erpr et at i on of J udge

### 7

M arr er o’ s r es t i tut i on or deri s t hatFl eetB ank w as t he vi ct i m of R odney ’ s bank fr aud, s in c e re s titu tio n is u s e d to c o m p e n s a te th e “ v ic tim ” o f a c ri m e , s ee 18 U . S. C . § 3664, and t he bank c oul d nothave be en a “ vi ct i m ” of Rodney ’ s t heftof governm ent p r o p e r t y. Fi nal l y , R odneyar gues t hatt he B I A deni ed hi m due pr oces s byr el y i ng on our deci s i on i n Ni

j haw an v. A t t or ney G ener al , 523 F. 3d 387 ( 3d C i r . 2008) , w i t houtgi vi ng hi m not i ce a nd an expl i ci ti nvi t at i on t o pr es entar gum entr egar di ng t he i m pactof that ca se. W e c an fin d n o au tho ri ty , an d R o d n eycit es n o n e, fo r th e p rop o sit ion that the B IA has a cons t i tut i onal obl i gat i on t o i nform al i ens of eve r yl egal author i t yon w hi ch i tpl ans t o r el y . M or eover , i n t hi s cas e, R odneyhad atl eas tt w o oppor tuni t i es t o pr es ent ar gum ent s t o t he B I A r egar di ng t he i m pactof Ni j haw an : bot h i n r es pons e t o t he G overnm ent ’ s br i ef pr i ort o t he B I A ’ s J ul y2008 deci s i on, and i n hi s t hi r d appea r ance b e f o re th e B IA , a f

te r t h e IJ ’s O c to b e r 2 0 0 8 d e c is io n . W e have cons i der ed R odney ’ s r emai ni ng ar gum ent s and fi nd t hem t o be w i t hout m e rit. III . F o rt h e r e a s o n s s e tf

o r t h a b o v e , we wi l l d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.