2008 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

5-2-2008 

# Ni jh a wan v . Atty Ge n U SA

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 06-3948

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

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

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Nijh a wa n v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1096. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1096P RE CE DE NT I AL
UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

__________ N o. 06- 3948

__________ M ANOJ NI J HAWAN, Pet i t i oner

v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

__________ Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof t he U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A N o. A 39 075 734) I m m i gr at i on J udge: W al t erA

. D ur l i ng

__________ A r gued D ece m ber11, 20072 B efore: R E N D E L L and S T A P L E T O N , C i rcui tJudg es,

and I R E N A S*, D i s t r i ctJ udge. ( Fi l ed M ay2, 2008)
T h o m a s E

. M o s e l e y [ ARGUE D] Sui t e 2600 O ne G at ew ayC ent er N ew ar k, N J 07102 C ouns el

f orP et i t i oner M i chel l e G

. L at our L y l e D

. J ent zer J ami e M

. D ow d [ ARGUE D] U

. S. D epart m entof J us t i ce O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on P. O

. B ox 878 B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D C 20044 C ouns el

f orR es pondent

__________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

__________

__________________

* H onor abl e J os eph E. I r enas , Seni orJ udge of t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r ict C our tfort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng by d e s ig n a tio n .3 R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge.
M anoj N i

j haw an appe al s fr om t he det er m i nat i on of t he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) t hat he had c om m i t t ed a n a g g ra v a te d f

e lo n ya n d w a s th u s re m o v a b le u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1101( a) ( 43) ( M ) ( i ) because h is co n sp ir ac yco n v ict ion co n s t i tut ed an off ens e i nvol vi ng fr aud ordece i tin w h i ch the l os s t o t he vi ct i m s exce eded $10, 000. N i j haw an chal l enges bot h as pect s of t his fi ndi ng , t he “ i nv ol vi ng fr a ud ” pr on g a s w e l l a s t he “ l os s” as pect

. A s t o t he l at t er , he cont ends t hat , i n or dert o s at i s fyt he qual i fy i ng l anguage , t he l os s amount had t o have be en adj ud icat ed as par tof hi s convi ct i on, and w as not

. W e r ej ect bot h chal l enges and w i l l pr ocee d t o addr es s eac h i n tur n.
T h e in d ictm e n t in v o lv e d a sc h e m e b y in d iv id u a ls w h o , it w as al l eged, s etout to depr i ve thei rvi ct i m s , m aj orbanks , of “hundr eds of m i l l i ons of dol l ar s . ” A

. R

. 229. T hr ough a s er i es of m i s r epr es ent at i ons , t he ba nks w er e i nduced t o m ake a num ber of l oans t o t he def

endant s ’ compani es , among t h em A l l i ed D eal s , I nc. N i

j haw an, w ho w as t he D eputyG ener al M anage rof A l l i ed D eal s , I nc. , w as l i s t ed i n C ount1, t he over al l cons pi r acy co u n t th at co n tai n ed the g en era l l o ss allega ti o n as to th e e n ti re fr aud s cheme and i nvol ved cons pi r acyt o co m m it bank fr aud, m ai l fr aud, and w i r e fr aud i n vi ol at i on of 18 U

. S. C

. § 371, and i n C ount3 0 , w hi ch al l eged c ons pi r acyt o comm i tm oney l aunder i ng i n vi ol at i on of 18 U

. S. C

. § 1956( h)

. T he r emai ni ng count s w er e fr aud count s i m pl i cat i ng o n e orm or e of the other defe ndant s i n s peci fi c fr audul ent l oans r angi ng fr om $163, 441 t o $2, 568, 526. T he ca s e w as t r i ed bef o re a j ur y , w hi ch convi ct ed N ij h aw an of a l l of t he count s agai ns thi m i n t he i ndi ct m ent

. T he j ur yw as not as ked t o, nordi d i t , det er m i ne the4 a m o u n t o f

th e lo s s a ttr ib u ta b le to a n yd e f e n d a n t.
N i j haw an e n ter ed i nt o a s t i pul at i on fors ent enci ng purpos es in w hi ch he a gr eed that , “bec aus e the l os s fr om t he offe ns e exc eeds $100 m i l l i on, t he off ens e l evel i s i ncr eas ed 26 l evel s . ” A

. R

. 264. I n ent er i ng t he j udgm entof convi ct i on, t he t r i al j udge fi l l ed i n the spac e for“l os s ” w i t h t he amount “$683, 632, 800. 23. ” A

. R

. 281. T he for m foot not ed t he factt hat “fi ndi ngs fort he t ot al amount of l os s es ar e req u i r ed under C hapt e r s 1 0 9 A, 1 1 0 , 1 1 0 A, a n d 1 1 3 A of Ti t l e 1 8

. ” A. R. 281. N i j haw an w as s ent ence d t o 41 m ont hs of i m pri so nm entand o r d e r e d t o p a y r e s t i tu t i o n i n t h e a mo u n to f $ 6 8 3 , 6 3 2 , 8 0 0

. 2 3

. No appea l w as t aken.
W hi l e N i

j haw an w as ser vi ng hi s s ent ence , he w as char ged w i t h r emovabi l i t y under 8 U

. S. C

. § 1101( a) ( 43) ( D ) for c o n v ic tio n o f

a m o n e yla u n d e ri n g o f f e n s e u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 1956 forw hi ch the amount l aunde red exceede d $10, 000 and u n d e r8 U

. S. C. § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( M ) ( i ) f o rc o n v i c t i o n o f

a c r i me i nvol vi ng fr aud ordece i ti n w hi ch l os s t o t he vi ct i m s exce eded $10, 000. T he I J s us t ai ned bot h char ges , r el y i ng pr i m ar i l yon t he § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( D) c h a r g e , a n d e n t e r e d a n o r d e ro f r e mov a l on F e b ru a ry 2 2 , 2 0 0 6

. O n appea l , t h e B I A r es t ed i t s deci s i on s ol el yon t he 8 U

. S. C

. § 1101( a) ( 43) ( M ) ( i ) char ge. A

. R

. 2 ( “W e w i l l aff i r m t he deci s i on of t he Im m igrati on J udge i ns ofaras he found the res pondentr emovabl e as an al i en convi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fel onyas defi ned i n s ect i ons 101( a) ( 43) ( M ) ( i ) an d ( U ) of t he I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i t yA ct ”)

. T he B I A r ej ect ed N i j haw an’ s ar gum entt hatfr aud i n t h e Im m i gr at i on andA ft ers ervi ng hi s s ent ence , N i j haw an r i s ked bei ng 1 i m m ed iat el yr emoved fr om t he U ni t ed St at es byU ni t ed St at es I m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cem ent

. H e, t her efor e, fi l ed a m ot i on fora stayof r emoval , w hi ch w e gr ant ed pendi ng t he re s o lu tio n o f

th e p re s e n t a p p e a l.

5 N at i onal i t yA ct( “I N A ”) s houl d be congr uent w i t h t he comm on law m ea n ing o f th e term

. A s to th e l o ss determ ination , the B IA agr eed t hat l os s w as not a nece s s ary el ement of t he off ens e for w hi ch he w as convi ct ed, not i ng t hatt he l os s r equi r ement “w as us ed as a q ual i fi er , i n a w ays i m i l art o l ength of s ent ence p ro v is io n s in o t h e r a g g ra v a te d f e lo n ys u b s e c tio n s .” A .R . 4 ( ci t i ng S in g h v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 8 3 F

. 3 d 1 4 4 , 1 6 1 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 )). It r eas oned that , al t hough t he j ur yhad not found a spe ci fi c dol l ar amount i n r ender i ng i t s gui l t y ver di ct , t he I J coul d pr oper l yfi nd l os s b a s e d o n t h e s t i p u l a t i o n o f f a c t s f o r s e n t e n c i n g a nd t he ju d g m e n t o f

c o n v ictio n sta tin g th a t th e lo ss in v o lv e d is $ 6 8 3 ,6 3 2 ,8 0 0 .2 3 , join tlya n d se v e ra lly . A .R . 4 -5 . T h e B IA h e ld t hatt he s t i pul at i o n , j u d g mentof convi ct i on, and r es t i tut i on or der w er e “s uffi ci ent t o es t abl i s h t hatt he r es pondent ’ s convi ct i on r ender s hi m r emovabl e. ” A

. R

. 5.
N i j haw an t i m el yfi l ed a pet i t i on for r evi ew , appea l i ng t he B IA ’s d e c isio n . O n a p p e a l, N ijh a w a n a rg u e s (1 ) th a t h is 1 off ense of con vict i on do es not i nv olve fraud o r decei tas t ho se t er m s ar e us ed i n t he I N A ; and ( 2) t h at h is c onvi ct i on di d not es t abl i s h t hatl os s t o hi s vi ct i m s exce eded $10, 000.
1. D i d t he of

f e ns e “i nvo l ve f

r aud”6 N i j haw an w as convi ct ed of cons pi r acyt o comm i tfr aud i n vi ol at i on of 18 U

. S. C

. § 371. T he I N A pr ovi s i on underw hi ch N ijh a w a n w a s c h a rg e d w ith re m o v a b ili typ ro v id e s: (43 ) T h e term “a g g rav ated fe lon y ” m ea n s--

. . . (M ) an o ff

en se th at-- ( i ) i nvol ves fr aud ordece i ti n w hi ch the loss t o t he vi ct i m orvi ct i m s exce eds $10, 000.
8 U

. S

. C

. § 1101( a) ( 43) ( M ) ( i )

. N i j haw an cont ends t hatt he

“ f ra u d ” a n d “ d e c e it” in th is p ro v isio n sh o u ld b e g iv e n th e ir comm on l aw m eani ng, w hi ch r equi r es actual reli ance upon al l eg ed lyfr audul ents t at ement s m ade a nd har m fr om t hat reli an ce . B ec au se a ctua l r eli an ce an d h arm fro m reli an ce are notnece s s aryl egal el ement s of t he fede r al fr aud s t atut es under w h ic h h e w a s c o n v i c te d , N ederv. U

ni t ed Stat es , 5 2 7 U .S . 1 ( 1999) , hi s convi ct i on, N i j haw an urge s , w as notan aggr avat ed f e lo n y . W e c a n e a silyd isp e n se w ith th is a rg u m e n t.
I n V a la n si v . A sh c ro

ft , w e exa m i ned the verys ect i on of t he I N A at i s s ue her e and i nt erpr et ed the l anguage br oadl y . 278 F. 3d 203 ( 3d C i r . 2002)

. W e s ai d:

w e deter m i ne w hether t he p hrase “offen se th a t-in v o lv e s f

ra u d o r d e c e it” h a s a p lain m e a n in g . T h e w o rd “ in v o lv e s” m e a n s “ to7 h a v e w ith in o r a s p a rt o f itse lf ” o r “ to r e q u ir e a s a n e c e s s a ry a c c o m p a n im e n t.” W ebs t e r ’s Th i r dNe w I n t e r nat i onal D i ct i on ary at 1191. T hus , an off ens e that

“ in v o lv e s f

ra u d o r de c e it” is m o st n a tu ra lly i nt e rp r e t e d a s a n o f

f e n s e t h a ti n c l u d es fr aud or dece i t as a nece s s aryco m ponent o r elem en t. Itdo es not r equ i re, ho w ever, thatthe el em ent

s of the of f ens e be coex t ens i ve wi th the cr i m e of f r aud

. Id

. a t 2 0 9 -1 0 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); s ee al s o B obb v. A t t ’

y G en . , 458 F. 3d 213, 218 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( “[W ] e have hel d t hats ubs ect i on ( M ) ( i ) cov ers al l offe ns es t hathave a s an es s ent i al el ement an in ten t to d e f

ra u d o r d e c e iv e .”); K i S e L e e v . A sh c ro ft , 368 F. 3d 218, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( “Subs ect i on ( M ) ( i ) has a gene r al appl i cat ion–t he gamut of s t at e and f eder al cr i m es i nvol vi ng f ra u d a n d d e c e it c a u s in g lo s s e s o v e r $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 .” ).
O th e r c i r c u i t s h a v e f

o llo w e d o u r l e a d

. See Cont eh v. G onz al es , 461 F. 3d 45, 59 ( 1s t C i r . 2006) ( “W e agr ee w i t h t he T hi r d C i r cui t

. . . . A n offe ns e w i t h a s ci ent erel ement of ei t her i nt entt o defr aud ori nt entt o dece i ve ca t egor i cal l yqual i fi es as an o f f e n se in v o lv in g f

ra u d o r d e c e it. ” ); Jam es v. G onz al es , 464 F. 3d 505, 508 ( 5t h C i r . 2006) ( not i ng t hat“[w ] e r ecogni ze that

‘ [w ]hetheran off

ens e “i nvol ves ” fr aud i s a br oaderques t i on t han w hetheri tcons t i tut es fr aud’ ” and c oncl udi ng t hat“[t ] he pl ai n l anguage of § 1344

. . . pr ovi des t hata vi ol at i on of ei t her s u b s e c tio n n e c e s s a ri ly en ta ils f ra u d o r d e c e it” ).
H er e, t h e c r i mi n a l s t a tu t e s u n d e rwhi c h Ni j h a wan was8 convi ct ed re qui r e t hat fr aud or fal s e or f r audul entpr et ens es be empl oy ed ( m ai l fr aud, w i r e fr aud, and bank f r aud)

. T hey t h e r e f o r e “ i n v o l v e ” f

r a u d o r d e c e i t f

o r t h e p u rp o s e s o f

t h e I NA. C l ear l y , N i

j haw an’ s ar gum ent s t o t he cont r ary ar e for ecl os ed by o u r p re c e d e n t.
2. W as N ij haw an convi ct ed of a f raud “i n w hi ch t he l os s t o t he vi ct i m s exceeded $10, 000”?
N i j haw an w as convi ct ed of cons pi r acyt o comm i tfr aud a n d th e re f

o re is s u b

je c t to re m o v a l u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1101( a) ( 43) ( U ) , w hi ch pr ovi des t hat“an a t t empt orcons pi r acy t o comm i t ” anotheraggr avat ed fel ony cons t i tut es an aggr avat ed fe lon y . T h e p rec ise ag g rav ated fe lon yp rov isi o n at i ssu e h ere defi nes an aggr avat ed fe l ony as an offens e t hat“i nvol ves fr aud ordece i ti n w hi ch t he l os s t o t he vi ct im orvi ct i m s exce eds $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 3 )( M )( i)

. A s w e have not ed above, t he “i nvol ves fr aud” l anguage of t hi s pr ov isi on perm i t s t he r ange of actual offe ns es t o be b roa d er tha n co m m o n law fra u d

. T h e issue rem ains , h o w ev er, wh e t h e rt h e l a n g u a g e “ i n wh i c h t h e l o s s t o t h e v i c t i m o rv i c t i ms exce eds $ 1 0 , 000” r equi r es t hata j ur yhave a ctual l yconvi ct ed defe nd ant of a l oss i n ex cess of $1 0, 00 0, as N i j haw an co ntends, o r p e r m its re so rt to th e p rio r c rim in a l re c o rd in o rd e r to d e ter m in e w h a t lo ss w a s in f a c t o c c a sio n e d b y o r a ttribu tab le to t he off ens e of c onvi ct i on. W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e lan g u a g e o f § 1 0 1 (a )(4 3 )(M )(i) do es not r equ i re a j ury t o hav e deter m i ned t hat there w as a l oss i n exce s s of $ 1 0 , 0 0 0

. T o r ead the “i n w hi ch” l anguage as8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 10 1 (a )( 43 )( M )( i i ) ( con vict i on for an o ffen se 2 “thati s des cr i bed in s ect i on 7201 of Ti t l e 26 ( r el at i ng t o t ax evas i on) i n w hi ch t he re venue l os s t o t he G overnm entexce eds $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 ” ); se e a lso id

. § 1101( a) ( 43) ( D ) ( “an of fens e des cr i bed in se cti o n 1 9 5 6 o f T it le 1 8 (relat ing to lau n d ering o f m o n etary in stru m e n ts) o r se c tio n 1 9 5 7 o f th a t title (re latin g to e n g a g in g in m o n e tar ytra n sa c tio n s in p ro p e rtyd e riv e d f ro m sp e c if

ic unl aw ful acti vi t y ) i f t he amount of t he funds exce eded $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 ”). A s w e not ed i n Si ngh , analogo us provis i on s i nclude a ll su b sec ti o n s tha t l im itco n v ict ion s to th o se “ fo r w h ich th e term of im p ri so n m enti s atl eas tone y ear . ” Id

. § § 1 1 0 1 (a)(43 )(F), ( G ) , ( J), ( P) , ( R ) , & ( S)

. A l s o r el evantar e s ubs ect i ons t hat exempt fr om t he defi ni t i on of aggr avat ed fel ony “the cas e of a fi r s toffe ns e forw hi ch the al i en has aff i r m at i vel ys how n t hatt he al i en c o m m it t ed the off ens e fort he purpos e of a s s i s t i ng, abett i ng, orai di ng onl yt he al i en’ s s pous e, chi l d, orpar ent( and 9 r equi r i ng t hatw hatfol l ow s m u s thave be en pr oven as an el em ent of t he cri m e w ou l d b ri ng abo ut an absurd res ult

. C l ear l y , t he phr as e i s , as t he B I A found, qual i fy i ng and does not cons t i tut e a pr ovabl e el ement

. F o rexampl e, w hati f t he l anguage w er e “i n w hi ch t he vi ct i m s w er e el der l y ” or“i n w hi ch t hree or m ore ban ks suffered l osses”? W ou l d the fact s of t hese qual i fy i ng phr as es have to h ave been pr oven as par tof t he o f f e n s e ? W e s u g g e s t n o t.
T o h o ld to the co n tr aryw o u ld es se n ti all yg u t eve ry depor t abi l i t ys t andar d cont ai ni ng t he “i n w hi ch” orot her anal o g ous qual i fy i ng l anguage , forw e ca nnoti m agi ne pr evi ous 2no ot her i ndi vi dual ) t o vi ol at e a pr ovi s i on of t hi s chapt er . ” Id

. § § 1 1 0 1 (a)(43 )(N ) & (P ). I n Tayl orv. U

ni t ed Stat es , t he Supr eme C o u rt h eld t hat 3 an enha ncemen t f

ora pr i orconvi ct i on for“bur gl ary ” under § 9 2 4 (e ) re q u ire d th a t ei th e r th e sta tu to ryd e f in iti o n su b sta n tially 10 convi ct i o ns i n w hi ch an a s pectof t he cr i m e thati s notan elem en t h a s b e en p rov en b ythe ju ry . T o h o ld to the co n tr ary w o u ld im p o s e a to ta lly im p ra c tic a l s ta n d a rd

. N o tw ith sta n d in g o u r b e lief th a t re a so n a b le m in d s c o u ld notdi ffe ron t hi s i s s ue, w e ac k n o w ledg e thatot hercour t s of ap p ea ls, an d , ind ee d , Ju d g e S tapleton , h av e reac h ed a c o n tr ary concl us i on. T heyhave done s o bas ed u p o n t he veryar gum ent t hatN i j haw an makes her e, namel yt hatt he Tayl o r v. U ni t ed St at es , 495 U

. S. 575 ( 1990) , and Shepar d v. U ni t ed Stat es , 544 U

. S

. 1 3 (20 0 5 ), lin e o f c a se s re q u ire it. W e su g g e st th a t th is r eas oni ng i s fl aw ed. T he “i n w hi ch” qual i fy i ng l anguage r ender s t he ana l y s i s under § 101( a) ( 43) ( M ) ( i ) di ffe r entfr om t he appr oach i n Tayl orand Sh e pa rd . I n fac t , w e hav e al readyso s t at ed.
I n S in g h v . A sh c ro ft, Ju d g e B ec k er ex p lored the c o n tou rs of t he appl i cabi l i t yof t he Tayl or - Sh e pa rd appr oach t o t he conce pt of

“aggr avat ed fe l ony ” i n t he I N A

. 383 F. 3d 144 ( 3d C i r . 2004)

. B ot h Tayl orand Sh epa rd i nvol ved the ques t i on of w hi ch courtdocument s orr ecor ds can be cons ul t ed t o det er m i ne w he t h e ra p r i o rc o n v i c t i o n q u a l i f i e s f o ra s e n t e n ci ng enhanc ement i n a subs equent cr i m i nal pr ocee di ng. T hes e ca s es 3corr es pond t o “gene r i c” bur gl ary or t he r ecor d demonst r at e that the ju ryn ec essa ri lyfo u n d all o f th e e lem en ts of g en eric b u rglary in o rd e r t o c o n v ic t th e d e f e n d a n t. 4 9 5 U .S . 5 7 5 (1 9 9 0 ). I n Sh ep ar d v. U

ni t ed Stat es , t he i s s ue w as w hethert he defe ndant ’ s pr i orpl ea of gui l t yt o bur gl ary , under a s t atut e that i ncl uded gene r i c bur gl aryas w el l as nongener i c bur gl arys uch as bur gl aryof a boa tor m ot or vehi cl e, w as a convi ct i on fort he vi ol entfel onyof generi c bur gl aryundert he A r m ed C ar eer C ri m inal A ct

. 544 U

. S. 13 ( 2005)

. T he Supr eme C o u rt r ej ect ed t he not i on t hat pol i ce r epor t s orcompl ai ntappl i cat i ons c o u ld b e u se d to sh o w th a t th e d e f e n d a n t h a d n e c e ss a rilyp led to t he qu a l i fy i ng t ype of bur gl ary , rul i ng i ns t ead thatt he s ent enci ng court m u s tl ook onl yatt he “s t atut or ydefi ni t i on, char gi ng d o c u m e n t , w r i t t e n p l e a a g r e e m e n t , t r a n s c r i p to f p l e a c o l l o q u y, and anyexpli cit fa ctual fi ndi ng byt he tr i al j udge t o w hi ch the defe ndantas s ent ed. ” Id

. at16. 11 s etfor t h w hathave be come know n as t he “c at egor i cal ” and “modi fi ed ca t egor i cal ” appr oache s t o det er m i ni ng t he cr i m e of w hi ch the def

endantw as pr evi ous l yconvi ct ed. T he ca t egor i cal a p p ro a c h lo o k s a t th e sta tu te o f c o n v ictio n , co m p a rin g e lem e n ts o f th e o f f e n s e to th e re q u ir e m e n ts o f th e e n h a n c in g p ro v is io n . W hen t he form al cat egor i cal appr oach of Tayl ord o e s n o t y ield a n a n sw e r, tw o d if

f e re n t typ e s o f in q u irym a yb e c a lled in to pl ay . J udge B ecke r r evi ew ed our j ur i s prudence and r eas oned as foll ow s r egardi ng t he p reci se i ssue befo re us:

O urj u r i s p ru d ence i n t he aggr avat ed f e lo n y a re a

– tw e lv e c a se s in a ll – is n o t a s e a m les s w e b

. In o rd e r to12 re so lv e th e a p p e a l w e h a v e f o u n d it nece s s aryt o anal y ze a nd s ynt hes i ze t his bo dyof ca se l aw , and w e do so a t le n g th . . . . A s w i l l a p p e a r, a p a ttern e m e rg e s, c a u sin g u s to concl ude that , w hi l e th e form al ca t egor i cal appr oach of Tayl or pr es um pt i vel yappl i es i n as s es s i ng w h ethe r a n ali en has been c o n v i c t e d o f

a n a g g r a v a t e d f

e l o n y, i n s om e ca s es t he l anguage of the p a r t i c u l a rs u b s e c t i o n of 8 U. S

. C. § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 3 ) a t iss u e w ill in v ite i nqui r y i nt o the under l

yi ng f act s of the ca se , a n d i n s o me c a s e s t he d isju n c tive p h ra sin go

f th e sta tu te o f co n v ictio n w ill

sim ila rly in v ite i nqui r y i nt o the s

peci f i cs of the convi ct i on. Si ngh, 383 F. 3d at148 ( emphasi s added)

. J udge B ec kert hus c o rre c tlyd re w th e c ru c ial d istin c tio n b e tw e e n d e p o rta b ili ty l ang uag e t ha t, o n the on e han d, cal l s Tayl orand Sh epa rd in to pl ay , i nvi t i ng i nqui r yi nt o t he s peci fi cs of t he convi ct i on, and, on t he other , i s es s ent i al lyqual i fy i ng l anguage notdemandi ng a c a t e g o r i c a l a n a l y s i s , b u tr e q u i r i n g , i n s t e a d , i n q u i r yi n t o t he under l y i ng fac t s . C as es i n w hi ch a c our thas r ecour s e t o t he m o d i fi ed ca t egor i cal appr oach ge ner al l yi nvol ve “di vi s i bl e” st atutes , w here t he pri or cr i m i nal offense, byst atute, i ncludes a w i de r ange of

ac t i vi t ybutt he r equi s i t e enha nci ng pr ovi s i on – s u c h a s v i o l e n tf

e l o n yo ra g g r a v a t e d f

e l o n y– r e q u i r e s o n e or13 m or e part i cul arel ement s t hat m ay orm aynothave be en found as par t o f t he convi ct i on. T he modi fi ed ca t egor i cal appr oach entai l s scruti nyof the natur e of the con vict i on i t sel f and t ho se el ement s t hatt he j ur ynece s s ar i l yfound t hr ough an exa m i nat i on of j udi ci al r ecor d evi dence

. I f t he j ur ydi d notnece s s ar i l yfi nd t hatel ement , t he “c onvi ct i on” w i l l notfi tw i t hi n t he en h an ced c a te g o ry. Tayl or - Sh epa rd i s t hus i m pl i cat ed.
O n th e o th e r h a n d , the in sta n t e n h a n c in g p ro v isio n is di ffe r ent

. T he l anguage does nots t at e “c onvi ct ed of a $10, 000 fr aud. ” R ather , i t r eads , “i nvol ves fr aud or dece i t i n w hi ch the lo s s to th e v ic ti m o r v ic tim s e x c e e d s $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 .” 8 U .S .C . § 1101( a) ( 43) ( M ) ( i )

. A s J udge B ecke rs peci fi cal l ys t at ed, t he pr ovi s i on befor e us h er e i nvi t es i nqui r yi nt o “the under l y i ng f a c t s o f t h e c a s e . ” Th e r e i s n o i s s u e h e r e r e g a r d i n g wh i c h c r i me w a s c o m m itt e d b yth e p e tit io n e r u n d e r a d iv isib le s tatu te, in w hi ch eve ntw e w o u ld be l i m i t ed t o an exa m i nat i on of t he “s peci fi cs of t he c o n v ic t i on” and w oul d empl oyt he modi fi ed cat egor i cal appr oach of Tayl orand Sh epa rd

. A ddr es s ing the a n aly sis r eq u ir ed u n d er the v erypr ovi s i on a t issu e h e re , Ju d g e B e c k e r m a d e c lea r th a t:

[A ] departur e fr om t he fo rm al c a t e g o r i c a l a p p r o a c h s e e ms w ar r ant ed w hen the t er m s of t he sta tu te in v ite inq u iry in to th e f a c ts under l y i ng t he convi ct i on ati s s ue. T h e q u a lif ier “ in w h ich th e lo ss to the vi ct i m orvi ct i m s exc eeds $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 ” i n 8 U. S

. C .14 § 1101(

a) ( 4 3 ) ( M ) (i) is t he pr ot ot ypi cal exam pl e – i texpr es s es su c h a sp e c ifi c ity o

f fa c t th a t it a lm o st b e gs a n a d

ju d ica to r to exam i ne the f

act s a t is s ue . T h is p rin c ip le e x p lain s o u r h o ld in g s in N ugent a n d Munr oe . A not her exam pl e w oul d be an e num er at i ng s tat u t e s peci f y i ng cr i m e s
“ c o mm i t t e d wi t h i n t h e l a s tt wo y ear s . ” Such a st atut e coul d notbe r ead t o coveronl ycr i m es w hi ch have “w i t hi n t he l as tt w o y ear s ” as a n e lem e n t; i n s tea d a c o u rt w o u ld r ead “ w i t hi n t he l as tt w o y ear s” as a l i m i t i ng pr ovi s ion on c r i m es t hat w o u l d o t h e r w i s e q u a l i f

y. I n cont r as t , cas es i nt erpr et i ng r e l a t i v e l y u n i t ar y cat egor i cal conce pt s – l i ke “for gery ” (D r akes ), “bur gl ary ” ( Tayl or i t s e l f ) o r“ c r i me of vi ol ence ” (Francis and B ovkun )

– d o n o t lo o k to u n d e rly in g f a c ts b e c a u s e th e e n u m e ra tin g sta tu te d o e s n o t in v i t e a n ys u c h in q u ir y . L i kew is e, t he hypot het i cal fede r al f e lo n ytr ilo g y ( S tee le , G er ber , and W i l s on ) as ks onl y w hethert he el eme n t s of a f

eder al cr i m i nal s t atut e can be sa t i s fi ed byr efe r enceO u r C o u rt ’s view re g a rd in g the m ea n ing o f, an d inq u iry 4 per m i t t ed by , 8 U

. S. C

. § 1101( a) ( 43 ) has be en r efe r ence d a p p ro v in g ly b yo th e r c o u rt s . See , e. g. , Jam es v. G onz al es , 464 F .3 d 5 0 5 , 5 1 0 n . 2 6 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); C ont eh v. G onz al es , 461 F .3 d 4 5 , 5 5 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). W e h a v e a lso a p p lied its ra tio n a le in in te rp re tin g o th e r p ro v is io n s o f th e IN A

. S ee Jo sep h v. A tt ’y G en ., 4 6 5 F .3 d 1 2 3 , 1 2 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); Kn a p ik v . A sh c ro

ft , 384 F

. 3 d 8 4 , 9 2 n . 8 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ). 15 t o t he a ctual s t atut e of c onvi ct i on; this p rese n ts no inv it ati o n to d ep art f r o m Tayl or ’ s for m al cat egor i cal appr oach an d ex am ine t he un derl y i ng fact s. 3 8 3 F

. 3 d at 16 1 (em p h asis a d d e d ). A cc o rdin g ly , o u r C o u rt ’s pr ece dentdi r ect s us t o “exa m i ne the fa ct s ati s s ue, ” beca us e the a m o u n t o f

lo ss is a “ q u a lifie r,” n o t an e lem e n t. 4
O ur case l aw has con si st entl yt reat ed the am ou nt of l oss a s a q u a lifie r ra th e r th a n a n e lem e n t o f th e c rim e . In 2 0 0 3 in Mu n ro e v . A sh c ro

ft , w e di d not r equi r e t hat t he def endanthave sp ec ifi ca ll yp led g u il ty to a loss am o u n t. 3 5 3 F

. 3 d 2 2 5 (3d C ir

. 2003)

. T o t he cont r ary , w e s t at ed that “the i ndi ct m ental l eged th a t th e lo ss e x c e e d e d th is am o u n t, an d M u n ro e d o e s n o t cla im t hat w hen he pl ed gui l t y , he admi t t ed t o onl ya l es s erl os s . N or i s t her e anys ugg esti on t hatt he Super i orC our teverfound t hat t he amount of t he l os s w as l es s t han $10, 000. ” Id

. at227. For th e p u rp o se s o f § 1 0 1 (a )(4 3 )(M )(i), w e lo o k e d to th e in d ictm e n t, w hi ch cont ai ned an a verm en t as t o l os s i n exce s s of $10, 000,T he di s s ents t at es t hatt he hol di ng i n Munr oe w as bas ed on 5 a lo ss a m o u n t “a d m itt e d in th e p lea a g re e m e n t.” T h is is inco rrect as the d istri ct co u rt ’s op inion in tha t case m ak es c lear. Mu n ro e v . A sh c ro

ft , N o. C i v. A

. 02- 2256, 2003 W L 21048961 ( E

. D

. Pa. J an. 16, 2003) ( “I n t hi s cas e, t he i ndi ct m ents t at ed that t he fr aud i nvol ved ca us ed a l os s t o t he vi cti m in exce s s of $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 . T h e re is no e v id e n c e th a t th e d e f e n d a n t p led g u ilty t o anyfac t s ot hert han as al l eged i n t he i ndict m ent

. ”)

. T he hol di ngs of bot h ourcour tand the di s t r i ct co u rt rel i ed on the amount al l eged i n t he i ndi ct m entand found byt he s ent enci ng c o u rt , n o t a n a m o u n t in th e p le a a g re e m e n t. 16 r athert han an a m ended r es t it u t i on or der , w hi ch r educe d defe ndant’s re s t i tut i on t o $9, 999. H ow ever , w e dec i ded that 5 th e a m o u n t o f

lo ss in a re stitu tio n o rd e r, w h ich b yits n a tu re is n e ith e r f o u n d b y a ju ryn o r sp e c if ica llyp led to b ya d e f

e n d a n t, c o u ld b e c o n s id e re d

. Id

. at227 ( “[T] h e am o u n t of r es t i tut i on o rde red as a r esu lt o f a co n v ict ion m ay b e he lpf u l to a c o u rt ’s i nqui r yi nt o t he amoun tof l os s t o t he vi ct i m i f t he pl ea ag ree m en t or i n d ict m en t i s u n clea r as to the loss su ff ere d

. ”).
N ijh a w a n c o n te n d s th a t m o re re c e n t a u th o ri ty, n a m e l y, o u r o p in io n in A l aka v. A t t or ney G ener al , 4 5 6 F

. 3 d 8 8 (3d C ir

. 20 06 ), con t radi ct s Si ngh and Munr oe and r equi r es convi ct i on of t he r equi s i t e amount of l os s . I n A l aka , the to tal lo ss a v e rre d in t he i n d ict m entas t o t he over al l s cheme exce eded $10, 000. H ow ever , A l aka pl ed gui l t yonl yt o a s i ngl e coun ti n a pl ea a g re e m e n t th a t re f

e re n c e d a lo s s to th e v ic tim o f $ 4 ,7 1 6 .6 8

. Id

. a t9 2

. T h e o t h e rc o u n t s a g a i n s tA l a k a w e r e d i s m i s s e d

. We concl uded t hatA l aka’ s offe ns e di d notqual i fyfort r eatm entas17 a n a g g ra v a te d f

e lo n y . Id

. at108.
N ijh a w a n u rg e s th a t A l aka s t ands for t he pr opos i t i on t hat t he loss am ou nt i s an el em ent t o w hich th e defe nd ant m ust p l e a d , o ro f

w h i c h t h e d e f

e n d a n tm u s tb e c o n v i c t e d

. We d is a g re e . T o th e c o n tr a ry, A l aka sta n d s f o r th e u n re m a rk a b le pr opos i t i on t hatone w ho has adm it t ed t o a l os s of l es s t han $10, 000 as par tof a gui l t ypl ea c annotl at erbe s ai d t o have be en convi ct ed of a n offe ns e i nvol vi ng fr aud i n w hi ch t he l os s t o t he vi ct i m exce eds $10, 000. W her e t her e i s a pl ea a gr eementt hat se ts f o rth th e lo ss it i s to th a t ag re e m e n t w e m u st lo o k to d e te r m i n e t h e lo s s . A l aka does notr equi r e thatt he def endant plead t o a sp e ci fi c l oss am ou nt; i trequi res on l yt hat, i f he h as, th a t a m o u n t i s c o n tr o llin g . A l aka d o e s n o t li m it th e in q u iryif n o loss is st ated in a plea ag ree m en t or su b m itted to a jury

. In fac t , i n A l aka w e conc l uded that“the I J pr oper l ycons i der ed the fac tual fi ndi ng i n t he s ent enci ng r epor t

. ” Id

. a t 1 0 5 , 1 0 6

. A l aka r equi r es onl yt hatw e “f ocus narr ow l yon t he l os s amount s t hat ar e part i cul ar l yt ethe red t o t he convi ct ed count s . ” Id

. at107 ( quot i ng Knut

s en v. G onz al es , 4 2 9 F

. 3 d 7 3 3 , 7 3 9 -40 (7th C ir

. 2 0 0 5 )).
T he onl yr e a l i s s u e i n t h e c a s e b e f o r e u s i s whe t h e rt he “t ether ” of a l os s i n exce s s of $10, 000 t o C ount1, t he countof c o n vict i on , i s suffi ci entl ystrong. W e hav e no tprevio u sly opi ned as t o t he nat ur e of t he nexus r equi r ed, ort he br eadth of t h e i n q u i r y i n t o t h e f

a c t s a s a u t h o r i z e d b y Si ngh , a n d , h e r e , we need onl y det erm i ne w hether t he r ecor d i s s uffi ci ent l ycl eart hat t he l os s r es ul t i ng fr om t he convi ct ed conductexce eds $10, 000.
H e r e , C o u n t 1 o f t h e i n d i c t m e n t c h a r g e d a c o n s p i r a c y,18 a lleg in g th a t d e f

e n d a n ts “ e n g a g e d in a f ra u d u len t sc h e m e to obt ai n m i l l i ons of dol l ar s in loans” fr om t he vi ct i m banks and s e ttin g f o rt h th e s c h e m e a n d ro le s o f th e c o - c o n s p ir a to rs . N i j haw an w as convi ct ed of Count 1, butt he j ur ydi d not , and w a s n o t a s k e d to , d e te rm in e th e a m o u n t o f lo s s to th e v ic tim s . H ow ever , i n a s ti p u lat i on fort he purpos es of s ent enci ng on C ount1, N i

j haw an agr eed t hat t he l os s exce eded $100 m i l l i on. A n d , in en teri n g the ju d g m en t of co n v ict ion , the D istri ct C o u rt m ad e a f

i ndi ng of “Tot al L os s ” i n t he amount of $683, 632, 800. 23. A s i n Munr oe , her e w e have no ar gum ent , l et al one anyt hi ng i n t he r ecor d, t hatN i j haw an w as convi ct ed of a n o ff en s e in v o lv ing less than $ 1 0 , 0 0 0

. T h is i s n o t a ca se w h ere t he j ury ’ s fi ndi ngs contr adi ctt he r es t i tut i on or derorl os s w as c a lcu late d o n th e b a sis o f u n c h a rg e d o r u n c o n v icte d c o n d u c t. A l l t he d ocu m ents and adm i ssi on s suppo rta fi nd i ng t hat the loss a m o u n te d to h u n d re d s o f m illio n s o f

d o lla rs . W e nee d notdeci de w hetheranyof t he “ fac t s ” her e, sta n d in g a lo n e , w o u ld su f f ice a s a “ teth e r,” a s w e c o n c lu d e th a t, t aken t oget her , t he i ndi ct m ent , j udgm en t o f convi ct i on, and s t i pul at i on pr ovide cl earand convi nci ng evi dence t hatt he r equi s i t e l os s w as t i ed t o N i j haw an’ s offe ns e of c onvi ct i on. W e not e t hat w e ar e not t he onl y cour t of appeal s t o have v iew e d th e in q u iryin to th e re c o rd o f c o n v ictio n to p e rm it exam inat i on of l os s nots peci fi cal l yadmi t t ed i n t he pl ea col l oquyoragr eementorfound bya j ur yas par tof t heO t hercour t s per m i t a broa der i nqui r y and have al l ow ed 6 l os s amount t o be es t abl i s hed byr efe r ence t o co n d uctt hat f o rm e d p a rt o f th e s a m e c o n s p ir a c y a s th e c o n v ic te d c o n d u c t, a b r o a d e r i n q u ir yth a n th a t w e h a v e h e re . S e e Kh a l a y l e h v
. I NS , 287 F. 3d 978 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) ( w her e al i en pl eade d gui l t yt o one countof t he i ndi ct m entw hi ch l i s t ed a che ck in the amount of $9, 308 butagr eed t o payr es t i tut i o n as det er m i ned byt he s ent enci ng court, t he l os s fr om t he t ot al s cheme t o defr aud in v o lv in g o th e r c h e c k s c o u ld b e c o u n ted ); s ee al s o Jam es , 464 F. 3d at511- 12 ( fol l ow i ng Khal ayl eh ). 19 convi ct i on. T he C our tof A ppeal s for t he Fi r s tC i r cui tal s o has

6 i ndi cat ed t hata courts houl d l ook t o l os s occa s i on ed byt he convi ct i on, r athert han l os s as an el ement found by the juryor e x p lic itly in c o rp o ra te d in th e p le a a g re e m e n t. C ont eh v. G o n z al es , 46 1 F

. 3d 45 (1stC i r. 20 06 ). E xerci si ng care in interpre ti n g the “los s ex ce ed s” lang u ag e in § 1 1 0 1 (a)(43 )(M )(i ), t he cour t r ecogni zed t hat “the di s t i nct i on betw een convi ct i on f or and c o m m iss io n o

f an aggr avat ed fe l o n y is a n i m por t antone; beca us e the B I A m aynotadj udi cat e gui l torm et e ou tcr i m i nal puni s hm ent , i tm us tbas e r emoval or der s on convi ct i ons , noton conductal one. ” Id

. at56. T hus , t he courtfound i t i m pr operfor th e B IA to re lyo n a n a rra tiv e sta tem e n t in th e P S I re p o rt, b u t d id appr ove t he B I A ’ s r el i ance o n the i ndi ct m ent , w hi ch al l eged sp e c if ic lo ss e s ex c e e d in g $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 , a n d th e f in a l ju d g m e n t, w h ic h in c lu d e d a f

in d in g o f lo s s a n d re s titu tio n o rd e r. Id

. at59 ( qu oti ng Sh epa rd , 544 U

. S. at 21)

. A s her e, an i ndi ct m entand j udgm ent , i ndi cat i ng l os s and r es t i tu ti on, w er e ava i l abl e and w er e a su ff

ici ent l yr el i abl e i ndi cat i on of t he l os s of w hi ch the pet i t i onerhad bee n convi ct ed.20 I n Knut s en v. G onz a le s , a c a se u p o n w h ich w e re lied in A l aka , th e C o u rt o f

A p p e a ls f

o r th e S e v e n th C irc u it sim ilarly re a so n e d th a t “c o n sis ten t w ith th e sta tu te . . . th e c o u rt sh o u ld f o c u s n a rro w lyo n th e lo ss a m o u n ts th a t a re p a rtic u la rly teth e re d to c o n v icte d

c o u n ts al one. ” 4 2 9 F .3 d 7 3 3 , 7 3 9 -4 0 (7 th C i r . 2005) ( emphasi s added)

. I n t hatcas e, the p et i t i onerhad pl ed gui l t yt o one counto f a m ul t i

- counti ndi ct m ent , w hi ch l i s t ed a l os s amount l es s t han $10, 000; for t he purpos es of t he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , how ever , he ent er ed i nt o a st i pul at i on w i t h t he gover nm ent i n w hi ch he acknow l edged t hat “the t ot al l os s fr om t he off

ens e of c onvi cti o n and r el evantconduct exce eded $20, 000. ” Id

. at736. B eca us e the s t i pul at i on i ncl uded r el evantconduct and w as not l i m i t ed t o t he l os s connec t ed t o or ca u sed b ythe o ff

en se o f c o n v ict ion , the c o u rtfo u n d that the IJ e rre d b yre ly in g o n it, b u t d id n o t re q u ire th e p lea c o llo q u yto h a v e in c lu d e d t h e s p e c if ic lo s s . Id

. at739. T he l os s w as not su f f icie n tly“ teth e re d ” to th e o f f e n s e o f c o n v ictio n so a s to cons t i tut e cl earand convi nci ng evi dence t hat t he pet i t i onerhad b ee n co n v ict ed of an agg rav ated fe lon y u n d er § 1 1 0 1 (a)(43 )(M )(i ).
T h e d e c isio n o f

th e C o u rt o f

A p p e a ls f

o r th e E lev e n th C i r cui ti n O b a so h a n v . A tto rn e y G e n e ra l fur t hers ubs t ant i at es o u r i n terpretati o n o f th is pro v isi o n . 4 7 9 F

. 3 d 7 8 5 (11 th C ir

. 2007)

. I n t h a t c a s e , t h e p e t i t i o n e r h a d b e e n o r d e r e d t o pay r es t i tut i on, due t o fr audul entchar ges on ot her cre di tcar ds t hat w e re n o t th e s u b

je c t o f th e in d ic tm e n t o r th e p le a a g re e m e n t. Id

. at789- 90. T he courtfound i tpart i cul ar l ys i gni fi cantt hatt he p e tit io n e r o b

jec ted to th e P S I’s a ss e rtio n o f lo ss d u e to addi t i onal conductand “ther efor e di d notadmi t , adopt , oras s ent t o t he factual fi ndi ngs t hatfor m ed the bas i s of t he r es t i tut i on21 o r d e r . ” Id

. at790. G i ven thatt he r es t i tut i on or derw as bas ed ent i r el yon ot herunconvi ct ed conduc t , w as notadmi t t ed byt he pet i t i oner , and w as t he onl yevi dence t hats uch l os s had occurr ed , t he I J coul d notfi nd l os s bycl earand convi nci ng e v id e n c e . Id

. at790 ( gather i ng cas es and ci t i ng Knut s en , Munr oe , and C ont eh w ith a p p ro v a l). A re stitu tio n o rd e r c o u ld be evi dence of t he l os s amount , but onl yi f i tw as “bas ed on the cons pi r acychar ge t o w hi ch O bas ohan pl ed g u i l t y , [] oron t he over t act s t o w hi ch O bas ohan adm i t t ed by pl eadi ng gui l t y , ” not “on addi t i onalconductt hatw as al l eged onl y i n t he PSI. ” Id

. at 789- 90.
W e sh o u ld n o te th a t n e ith e r w e n o r th e se o th e r c o u rts have a bandoned the Tayl or - Sh epa rd a p p ro a c h

. In d e e d , w e still r es or tt o i tatt he i ni t i al phas e of ouranal y sis b ec au se § 101( a) ( 43) ( M ) ( i ) i ns t ruct s us to deci de w hethert he al i en has been convi ct ed of a c r i m e i nvol vi ng fr aud ordece i t

. E m pl oy i ng t he form al cat egor i cal appr oach a nd l ooki ng t o the s t atut e of convi ct i on, w e det er m i ned thatN i j haw an’ s convi ct i on i nvol ved f ra u d o r d e c e it an d th u s w a s a p ro p e r p r e d ic a te o f f e n se w ith in th e “ a g g ra v a ted f

e lo n y ” d e f

in iti o n . O n c e th is c o n c lu sio n is r eac hed, ourcas e l aw t hen r equi r es an “i nqui r yi nt o t he under l y i ng fac t s of t he ca s e” t o as cert ai n w hether t he “i n w hi ch” q u a lif y in g lo s s p ro v is io n is s a tis f ie d

. N i j haw an ur ges t hatw e s houl d depart fr om our cas e l aw and foll ow t ho se court s of ap peals t hat have int erpr et ed the l oss req ui r ement i n I N A § 101( a) ( 43) ( M ) ( i ) i n a more r es t r i ct i ve w ay . I n par t i cul ar , he ur ges t hatw e s houl d adoptt he r eas oni ng of t he C our tof A ppeal s fort he Second Ci r cui t , w hi ch h as s et for t h a ru l e t h a tt h e l o s s r e q u i r e me n tmus tb e e s t a b l i s h e d byIn th e c a se o f p lea s o f g u ilty , th e d iss e n t’s r u le r e s tr ic ts 7 in q u iryto “ f

a c ts to w h ich a d e f

e n d a n t ac tu a ll y an d n e c e ss a rily pl eade d i n or dert o es t abl i s h t he el ement s of t he off en se, as i ndi cat ed bya cha r gi ng document , w r i t ten p l ea a gr eement , or pl ea c ol l oquyt r ans cr i pt

. ” 501 F. 3d at131. 22 “ f a c ts actual l yand nec es s ar i l yfound bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt bya j ur yorj udge i n or dert o es t abl i s h t he el emen ts o f t he o ff e n se, as ind icated b ya c h arg ing d o cu m en t or j u ry i ns t ruct i ons . ” D ul al

- W hi t ew ay v. U

. S. D ep’ t of H om eland Sec. , 501 F. 3d 116, 131 ( 2d C i r . 2007)

. T her e, t he courtdet er m i ned 7 t h a t , b e c a u s e r e s t i tu t i o n w a s n o tn e c e s s a r i l y f o u n d b y t h e j u r y, a r es t it u ti o n or derw as i ns uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h t hatt he fr aud convi ct i on w as one “i n w hi ch the l os s to the v ic t i m s exce eds $10, 000. ” Id

. a t 1 3 0

. T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo r th e N in th C i r cui tal s o appl i ed t he “m odi fi ed cat egor i cal ” appr oach t o t he l os s r equi r ement i n L i v. A sh c ro ft and found t hat i tw as i m pr oper t o rel yon t he ch argi ng do cum ent, w hich descri bed speci fi c l oss am ou nts , and t he j ud gm ent of conv i ct i on for t ho se co un t s, b e c a u s e i t h a d “ i n t h e r e c o r d n o j u r yi n s t ru c t i o n s , v e r d i c tf o r m, o r o th e r c o m p a ra b le d o c u m e n t su g g e stin g th a t th e ju rya c tu a lly w as cal l ed o n to deci de, for ex a m ple, t hat Pet i t i on er’ s fal se c laim s w e re f

o r a p a rticu lar a m o u n t.” 3 8 9 F .3 d 8 9 2 , 8 9 8 (9 th C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ) (ex p ressing n o o p inion h o w ev e r “ a s to w h ethe r a d e f e n d a n t’s a d m iss io n o f a sp e c if

ic s e n ten c in g f

a c t w o u ld s uffi ce” )

. A s w e not ed above, w e conc l ude thatt hi s t r eatm ent of t he qual i fy i ng l anguage as s et t i ng for t h an el ement of t he offe ns e i s uncal l ed forand m ak es li t t l e s ens e. W hi l e our dis sent i ng coll eagu e urges t hat express con vict i o n o f t he loss amount w i l l l end ce r t ai nt yand ea s e t o t he ana l y s i s , w e d o notI n or der t o r eac h a contr ary r es ul t , t he di s s entl abel s s al i ent 8 por t i ons of ourpr i or pr ece dent“di ct a. ” See d is s e n tin g o p ., n . 9 & 11. 23 t hi nk t hi s j us t i fi es our embra ci ng an i nt erpr et at i on of t he l ang uag e t hat w i l l render the p rovi si on t oo t hles s.
M or eover , ourcas e l aw cl ear l yr ej ect s t he r es t r i ct i ve i nt erpr et at i on of I N A § 101( a) ( 43) ( M ) ( i ) ’ s l os s r equi r ement adopt ed by t he Second C i r cui ti n D ul al

- W hi t ew ay a n d th e N in th C i r cui ti n Li

. Munr oe , Si ngh , and A l aka m ake cleart hat the loss a m o u n t n e e d n o t b e f

o u n d sp e c if

ica lly b y th e ju ryo r se t f o rth in t he pl ea agr eement or col l oquy . R ather , as w e have s aid, t he 8 l os s r equi r ement i nvi t es fur t her i nqui r y i nt o t he fa ct s under l y i ng t he co nv i ct i on , and t hat i nq uiryi s sat i sfi ed if the a m ou nt of l oss i s s uffi ci ent l yt ether ed t o t he fr aud convi ct i on.
H ad ourpr i orpr ece dentnotcompe ll ed ourconcl us i on, w e st i l l w oul d fi r m l y di s agr ee w i t h t he r es t r i ct i ve i nt erpr et at i on. For , ourdeci s i on actual l yfos t er s t he pr i n ciples t he Second C i r cui ti dent i fi ed i n D ul al

- W hi t ew ay and best comport s w i t h t he text an d p u rpo se of the IN A ’s ag g rav ated fe lon y p rov isi o n . In D ul al

- W hi t ew ay , t he Second C i r cui tnot ed thatt he w or ds of t he I N A pr ovi s i on r ender depor t abl e one w ho has been c onvi ct ed of an aggr avat ed fe l ony , not one w ho has comm i t t ed an a ggr avat ed f e lo n y . Id

. at132. W e do not di s agr ee w i t h t hi s and, m uch l i ke t he C our t of A ppeal s for t he Fi r s tC i r cui ti n C ont eh , w e end orse c a re f u l c o n sid e ra tio n o f th e re c o rd to d e ter m in e w h e th e r it is s uffi ci en tl y cl eart hatt he l os s connec t ed t o t he cr i m e of convi ct i on exce eded $10, 000. A s J udge B ecke rnot ed i n Si ngh ,T he di s s entpos i t s t hat our opi ni on per m i t s cons i der at i on 9 of l os s caus ed by “r el evant conduct ” r ather t han t he conductof convi ct i on. T h is is notcorr ect

. B yr equi r i ng t hatl os s be t ether ed t o t he convi ct ed conduc t , w e ar e ex cludi ng c o n sid e ra tio n o f

re lev a n t co n d u c t, as d id th e C o u r t o f A p p e a ls for t he S eventh C i r cui ti n Knut s en and the C our tof A ppeal s for t he El eventh C ir cu iti n O bas ohan

. In f ac t, w e u se th e w o rd “rel evan t ” on l yi n d i scussi ng t hese co urt s’ op i nions. Fur t her m or e, t her e i s no conducti n t hi s cas e othert han t hatunder l y i ng t he convi ct i on. T he d isse nti ncorr ect l ys t at es t hatt he conduc ti n N i

j haw an’ s s ent enci ng s t i pul at i on per t i nent t o t he G ui del i nes enhanc ement and t he r es t i tut i on or deri ncl udes r el evant , as w el l as convi ct ed conduc t , as i n O bas ohan

. I tdoes no t

. In fact , t his very c lea rl ydis t i ng uis hes O bas ahan and Knut s en , c a s e s w ith w h ic h w e a g re e . 24 t he s peci fi c w or ds “i n w hi ch the l os s t o t h e v ict i m s exce eds $10, 000” s ugges tj us t s uch an i nqui r yi nt o t he fa ct s under l y i ng t he convi ct i on. T he r equi r ement t hat w e set for t h t odayt hatt he l os s amount be s uffi ci ent l yt i ed or tethe red t o t he off ens e of c o n v ictio n b o th re sp o n d s to th e S e c o n d C irc u it’s c o n c e rn th a t a r es t i tut i on or der bas ed upon conduct of w hi ch the def endantw as n o t co n v icte d sh o u ld n o t b e re lied o n , an d d o e s n o t ar b itra rily c a b i n t h e i n q u i r y. 9
T h e d if f icu ltyin sa y in g th a t th e c o u rt w ill lim it i n q u iryto t he pr eci s e “r ecor d of convi ct i on” us ed i n t he A r m ed C ar eer C ri m inal co n text fo r pu rpo ses o f d eterm ining loss u n d er § 1 0 1 (a)(43 )(M )(i ) is m ad e m an ifest in the d ec isi o n s o f th e C o u rt of A ppeal s for the N i nt h C i r cui t

. T hatcour tappea r s t o adopt25 t he r equi r ement t hatt he pet i t i onerhad t o have be en convi ct ed of th e lo ss , b u t th e n lo o k s b e y o n d w h a t th e ju ryf o u n d in o rd e r to det er m i ne l os s am o u nt

. For exampl e, i n Fe rr e ira v . A sh c ro ft , t h e c o u r tc i t e d o u rd e c i s i o n i n Munr oe w i t h appr oval and r eas oned t hatt her e w as no rul e pr ohi bi t i ng i m m i gr at i on j udges f ro m lo o k in g to a re stitu tio n o r d e r to d e ter m in e lo ss a m o u n t. 390 F. 3d 1091 ( 9t h C i r . 2004) ( r el y i ng on Munr oe and C hang v. I NS , 307 F. 3d 1185 ( 9t h C i r . 2002) )

. A lt h ough t he courthas i ns i s t ed thati ti s us i ng t he modi fi ed cat egor i cal appr oach, i thas a c tu a l l y e n g a g e d i n a b r o a d e ri n q u i r y. O urhol di ng t odayi s cons i s t entw i t h t he di ffe r ent evi dent i arys t andar ds used i n cr i m i nal , s ent enci ng, and i m m i gr at i on p r ocee di ngs , r es pect i vel y . I n D ul al , t he C our tof Ap p e a l s f

o rt h e S e c o n d Ci r c u i tc r i t i c i z e d t h e a p p r o a c h we endor s e bec aus e, i tbel i eved, it “w oul d per m i tt he governm ent to o rde r an alien rem o v ed in the ab sen ce o f th e c lear, unequi vocal and convi nci ng evi dence r equi r e d b y[ i mmi g r a t i on] law

. ” 5 0 1 F

. 3 d at 1 3 2

. H o w ev er, i ts ho lding raises the stan d ard o f p ro o f to b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t w h ile o u r h o ld in g a c tu a lly a d h e re s to th e “ c le a r a n d c o n v in c in g ” s ta n d a rd

. A ccor d C ont eh , 4 6 1 F

. 3 d at 5 6 (rejecti n g “the im p li cit p rop o sit ion that the IN A ’s u se o f th e w o rd “ c o n v icte d ” in 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 (a )(2 )(A )(iii) el evat es t he govern m ent ’ s bur den i n aggr avat ed fe l onycas es fr om cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence t o pr oof bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt( t hati s , pr oof t hatfac t s w er e nec es s ar i l yfound bya cr im inal j ur yoradmi t t ed byt he al i en qua c r i m i nal d ef en d an t) ”).
M os tfr aud s t atut es , i ncl udi ng t he feder al s t atut es ati s s ue her e, do not cont ai n l os s as an el ement or r equi r e t hat a j ur yfi ndIn f ac t, Li , upon w hi ch the di s s entr el i es , di d notcons i der 10 t he cha r gi ng document w hi ch l i s t ed s peci fi c l oss a m ount s and th e ju d g m e n t o f c o n v ictio n o n th o se c o u n ts to b e su f f icie n t to pr ove t he l os s am o u n t pr eci s el ybeca us e the j ur yw as not r equi r ed t o fi nd a l os s amount t o a gui lt y v erd i ct

. 389 F. 3d at 8 9 8 . H e re th e p ro se c u to r d id in f a c t in c lu d e th e lo ss a m o u n t in th e c rim in a l in d ictm e n t. It w ou l d n ecessar i l ybe the prosecut or w ho w ou l d reque st 11 t hi s char ge, for , i f t he rul e es pous ed i n D ul al

- W hi t ew ay app l i es, d e f e n se c o u n se l w o u ld b e c o n ten t nott o have the l os s found by t he jur y . W e m ustw on de r w h y th e prosecutorw ou l d ev er as k t he j ur yt o fi nd a fa ctnotr el evantt o the convi ct i on. 26 l os s ora def

endantpl ea t o a s peci fi c l os s amount

. A s w e not ed ab o v e, i n sist en ce o n loss as p art o f t h e co n d u ct w o u ld ren d er § 1101( a) ( 43) ( M ) ( i ) l arg elyino p era ti v e, fo r rarelyw il l a def endant be convi ct ed of a fr aud off ens e w i t h l os s as an el ement found by th e ju ry o r e x p licitly a d m itt e d to in a g u ilty p lea

. U n d e r th e ru le a d o p t e d i n D ul al

- W

hi t ew ay w h ic h th e d is s e n t e m b ra c e s , a fi ndi ng bey ond a r eas on ab l e doubtw oul d be r equi r ed, not m er el yt he al l egat i on of a s peci fi c l os s amo u n t in a cr i m i nal i ndi ct m ent

. A j ur yw oul d have t o be cha r ged as t o l os s amount

10 and make a s peci fi c and a ddi t i onal fi ndi ng. 11
U nl i ke t he Second Ci r cui t , w e fi nd no “‘daunt i ng’ pr act i cal di ffi cul t i es ” as s oci at ed w i t h l ooki ng t o a w i derarr ayof re c o rd s th a t p o ss e ss a h ig h in d icia o f re liab ili ty . It i s w e ll w ith in t he compet ence of a c our t t o exami ne the r ecor d forcl earand conv inci ng evi dence of l os s caus ed byt he conduc tof27 c o n v ic tio n . I ndeed, w e bel i eve ther e ar e fa rgreat erpr act i cal di ffi cul t i es inher enti n at t empt i ng t o bend the “modi fi ed cat egor i cal appr oach” of T ayl orand Sh epa rd

t o appl yt o a f in d in g o f th e re q u isite m in im u m lo ss c a u se d b y f ra u d o r d e c e it, w hi ch i s r ar el yfound by a j ur yorexpl i ci t l yi ncl uded i n t he pl ea agr eement , beca us e iti s a qual i fi er , notan el ement of t he offe ns e. M or eover , w e s hould n o t rai s e an a s pectof an i m m i gr at i on s t atut e t o t he l evel of an e lem en t o f a c r i m i nal offe ns e, as t he di s s entur ges , m er el ybeca us e re qui r i ng t hati tbe a partof t he conv i ct i on eases a court ’s decis i on -m aking process.
A c c ordi ng l y , b e c a u se th e p e tit io n e r w a s p re v io u sly convi ct ed of c ons pi r acyt o com m i t“an of fens e thati nvol ves fr aud ordece i ti n w hi ch t he l os s t o t he vi ct i m orvi ct i m s exce eds $10, 000, ” he c om m i t t ed an aggr avat ed fel ony , and w e w i l l deny h i s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w.28 Ni j haw an v. A t t or ney G ener al– N o. 06- 3948
S T A P L E T O N , J., d iss e n tin g :
I agr ee w i t h t he C our tt hatN i j haw an’ s co n vi ct i on for cons pi r acyt o comm i tbank fr aud, m ai l fr aud and w i r e fr aud con st i tuted a con vict i on for con spi racyt o co m m i tan o ffen se
“ th a t i n v o l v e s f

ra u d o r d e c e it” a s d e f in e d b yth e IN A . I there fore j oi n Sect i on 1 of t he C our t ’ s opi ni on. I di s agr ee, h o w e v e r, w ith th e C o u rt’s c o n c lu sio n th a t p rio r d e c isio n s o f th is C ou rtcom pel the ap proach t o the § 11 01 (a) (43)( M )(i ) l oss elem en t th at t h e C o u rtad o p ts, an d I b e liev e tha t ou r C o u rt sh o u ld re tain th e IN A ’s c o n v ictio n re q u ire m e n t f o r th a t ele m e n t. I wo u l d t h e r e f

o r e g r a n tt h e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w.

U n d er the Im m igrati o n an d N atura li za ti o n A ct (“IN A ”), “[a]nyal i en w ho i s conv i ct ed of an a ggr avat ed fe l onyatany tim e a f t e r a d m is s io n is d e p o rt a b le .” 8 U .S .C . § 1227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) ( emphasi s added)

. T he term “aggr avat ed fe lon y ” is d ef

ined in 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 1 0 1 (a)(43 ) t o inclu d e , i nt er a lia , “a n a ttem p t o r c o n sp ira c yto c o m m it” “ a n o f f e n se th a t -- (i) i nvol ves fr aud ordece i ti n w hi ch the l os s t o t he vi ct i m or v ic t i m s exce eds $10, 000. ” Id

. at §§ 1 1 0 1 (a)(43 )(M )(i ), 1 101( a) ( 43) ( U )

. T her efor e, undert he pl ai n l anguage of t he I N A , pet i t i oneri s r emovable o n ly if he w as “convi ct ed” of a c o n s p i r a c y t o c o mmi t “ a n o f f e n s e t h a t

. . . i n v o l v e s fr aud or dece i ti n w hi ch the l os s t o t he vi ct i m orvi ct i m s exce edsD u la l-W h itew a y v . U .S . D e p ’ t o f H o m e la n d S e c u rity , 501 12 F .3 d 1 1 6 , 1 2 8 (2 n d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ); L i v. A shc ro ft , 3 8 9 F. 3d 892, 8 9 5 -9 8 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); 

### Obas ohan v

. Attorne yGe ne ral , 479 F. 3d 785, 788- 89 ( 11th Ci r . 2007)

. 29 $10, 000. ” Id

.

S e v e ra l C o u r ts o f

A p p e a ls , i n c lu d in g o u r s , p r e su m p tiv e ly appl ys om e var i antof t he “c at egor i cal ap p r o a c h ” f i r s tar t i cul at ed by t he S upr eme C our ti n Tayl orv. U ni t ed Stat es , 495 U

. S. 575 ( 1990) , and fur t herexpl ai ned i n Shepar d v. U ni t ed St at es , 544 U

. S. 13 ( 2005) , t o det er m i ne w hether an al i en’ s pr i orconvi ct i on qual i fi es as an “aggr avat ed fel ony . ” C our t s of A ppeal s h ave d iv e rg e d , h o w e v e r, re g a r d in g h o w a re v iew in g c o u rt sh o u ld det er m i ne w hether a n al i en’ s pr i orconvi ct i on s at i s fi es t he $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 lo ss re q u ire m e n t o f § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 3 )(M )(i). A lth o u g h a ll C our t s of A ppeal s per m i tt he r evi ew i n g cour tt o l ook bey ond T a ylor ’s “ f o rm a l” v e rsio n o f th e c a teg o ric a l ap p ro a c h – a sim p le c o m p a riso n o f

th e e lem e n ts of th e p rio r statu te o f c o n v ictio n to t he I N A defi ni t i on – and al l ow r ecour s e t o t he “re co rd of convi ct i on” t o s om e degr ee, cour t s di s agr ee r egar di ng t he pr eci s e natur e of thatfur t heri nqui r y . T he C our t s of A ppeal s for t he Second and N i nt h C i r cui t s , and, as I r ead i t s pr ece dent , t he E l eventh C i r cui t , have adopt ed a “modi fi ed cat egor i cal appr oac h ” i n w hi ch t he r evi ew i ng cour tl ooks t o t he r ecor d of convi ct i on i n or dert o det er m i ne the fa ct s upon w hi ch the p eti ti o n er’s p ri o r co n v ict ion ac tuallyan d n ec essa ri ly rested

. In 12 con t ras t , t he C ou rtof A pp eal s for the F i rs tC i rcui tal l ow s aSee Cont eh v. G onz al es , 4 6 1 F

. 3 d 4 5 (1st C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ). 13 30 br oaderi nqui r yunderw hi ch i m m i gr at i on cour t s m ays crut i ni ze o th e r f a c ts, g lea n e d f

ro m th e a lien ’s r e c o rd o f c o n v ictio n , to i ndepende nt l ydet er m i ne, bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence , w hethert he cr i m e r es ul t ed i n a l os s gr eat ert han $10 , 0 00. I 13 fi nd t he appr oach of

t he C our t s of A ppeal s fort he Second a nd N i nt h C i r cui t s t o be t he bett err eas oned appr oach.

T he Sup r eme C our tar t i cul at ed the T aylor- Sh epa rd cat egor i cal appr oach w hen r evi ew i ng 18 U

. S. C

. § 924( e) , w hi ch pr ovi des fora s ent enci ng enhanc ement i f a def endanthas been convi ct ed of cert ai n enumer at ed pr i or offe ns es . T he C our t s of A ppeal s have tr ans pl ant ed t h atcat egor i cal appr oach i nt o t he IN A becau se of o bv i ou s si m i l ari t i es b et w een t he tw o inquir i es. T he pl ai n l anguage of t he I N A , l i ke § 924( e) , m andat es t hatt he a l i e n wa s “ c o n v i c t e d ” o f t h e p r i o r o f f e n s e d e s i g n a t e d i n t h e I NA a s a n “ a g g ra v a ted f

e lo n y .” It is n o t su f

f icie n t f o r th e B IA to i ndepen d e nt l yconcl ude thatt he al i en “ha s comm i t t ed” thatpr i or off ense. T herefore, t he IN A , l i ke § 92 4 (e ), requ i res a compar i s on of t he pr i or convi ct i on t o t he gene r i c def i ni t i on of t he pert i nentaggr avat ed fe l ony– i n t hi s ca se, §§ 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 3 )( M )( i) a n d (U ).

T h e ra tio n a le is n o t ju st a tex tu a l o n e , h o w e v e r. C o u rts hav e ado pted cat ego rical app roaches for t he IN A al so beca useT he C ou rtof A pp eal s for Fi rs tC i rcui tfou nd such f ai rness 14 conce r ns l es s t han compel l i ng beca us e Sh epa rd had emphas i zed that, in the co n text o f sen tenc ing en h an ce m en ts u n d er § 9 2 4 (e), t hos e conc erns al s o r ai s e Si xt h A m endment pr obl ems, and s uch cons t i tut i onal conce r ns ar e i nappl i cabl e i n ci vi l r emoval p r o c e e d in g s . C ont eh , 4 6 1 F .3 d a t 5 5 . H o w e v e r, Tayl ora nd Sh epa rd w er e r oot ed i n bas i c not i ons of fai r nes s t hatext end bey ond t he pr ot ect i ons of t he Si xth A m endment , and w e, l i ke t he Second Circu it , began t o adoptcat egor i cal appr oache s for 31 t he I N A i nqui r y i nvol ves t he s ame sor t s of pr act i cal di ffi cul t i es and fai r nes s conce r ns under l y i ng t he S upr eme C our t ’ s deci s i ons i n Tayl orand Sh epa rd

. A s t he Second Ci r cui texpl ai ned, “the B IA a n d re v iew in g c o u rts a re ill -su ited to re a d ju d ica te th e b a sis of pr i orcr i m i n al convi ct i ons . ” D ul al

- W hi t ew ay , 501 F. 3d at 1 3 2

. See al

s o i d. ( “w e decl i ne t he i nvi t at i on t o pi ece t ogetheran under l y i ng at t empt convi ct i on b yw ei ghi ng evi dence and dr aw i ng concl us i ons i n a m anner appr opr i at e onl yfora cr i m i nal j ur y ”) ( quot i ng Sui v. I

. N

. S. , 2 5 0 F

. 3 d 1 0 5 , 1 1 9 (2n d C ir

. 2 0 0 1 )); Sh epa rd , 544 U

. S. at 23 ( a purpos e of the ca t egor i cal appr oach is th e “ a v o id a n c e o f

c o llate ra l trials” ). A s th e S e c o n d C irc u it a lso re c o g n ize d , the c a teg o ric a l ap p ro a c h p ro m o te s b a sic p re c e p ts o f

f a ir n e s s . Id

. at 13 3 (“‘[I]f th e gu il ty p lea t o a lesse r, [ n o n -re m o v a b le] o f

f e n se w a s th e re su lt o f

a p lea b a rg a in , it w oul d s eem unfai rt o [or derr emoval ] as i f t he def endanthad p lead ed g u il ty to [ a re m o v ab le of fe n se].’ [ Tayl or , 495 U

. S. ] at 601- 02. B y per m i t t i ng t he B I A t o r emove onl yt hos e al i ens w ho have ac tual l yornece s s ar i l ypl eade d t o t he el ement s of a r emovabl e offe ns e, our hol di ng pr om ot es t he fai r exer ci s e of t he re m o v a l p o w e r” ). In su m , I ag re e w ith th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls 14t he I N A befor e Sh epa rd ar t i cul at ed i t s Si xt h A m endment r a t io n a le

. D ul al

- W

hi t ew ay , 5 0 1 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 -3 3

. See S hep ard , 544 U

. S. at20 ( “ce r t ai nl y , ‘ the pr act i cal di ffi cul t i es and po t enti al un fai rness of a fact ual approach a re daun t i ng , ’ no l ess in p le a d e d th a n in litig a te d c a s e s ” ) ( in te rn a l c ita tio n o m itte d ). T he C our t concl udes t hatt he l os s m us tm er el ybe found by 15 t he I m m i g rat i on J udge and BIA undert hei r“cl earand convi nci ng evi dence ” s t andar d and be “ t ether ed” t o t he convi ct i on. T he C our tdoes not defi ne t he “t ether ed” t es tfur t her butm er el yhol ds t hati ti s s at i s fi ed byt he fa ct s of t hi s cas e. T he hol di ng p rovi des no gui dance t o t he I m m i gr at i on J udges w ho w il l app lyS ec ti o n s 1 2 2 7 (a)(2)(A )(i ii ) a n d 1 1 0 1 (a)(43 )(M )(i ). U ndert he s t andar d t he C our tadopt s , forexampl e, w oul d a futur e I J be perm i t t ed t o concl ude ( underi t s cl earand c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e sta n d a rd ) th a t th e $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 lo ss is es t abl i s hed, and i s “t ether ed” t o t he al ien’s convi ct i on, by loo k ing to f

ac ts i n a p re -sen tenc e inv esti g ati o n rep o rt(“P S I”), o r to f a c ts in a p o lic e re p o rt, o r to se lec t ev id e n c e p re se n ted in 32 for t he S econ d C i rcui tt h a tt he sam e pract i cal and fai rness d i f f i c u l t i e s i d e n t i f

i e d b y Tayl orand Sh epa rd w oul d at t end an in ter p ret at i on of the IN A t hat al l ow ed im m i grat i on cou rt s to r e o p e n t h e f

a c tu a l r e c o r d o f p r i o r c r i mi n a l c o n v i c t i o n s and under t ake ne w fac tual fi ndi ngs , ut i l i zi ng a di ffe r ents t andar d of proof , t o det erm i ne w hethera requi red el em ent ( a $1 0, 00 0 loss ) w as me t

. I n d e e d , i f t h e l o s s r e q u i r e me n t i s n o t s u b j e c t t o t he convi ct i on r equi r ement , w hyl i m i tt he ev ide nt i arynett o t he p r i o rr e c o r d o f

c o n v i c t i o n a ta l l ? Abs e n tt h e c o nvi ct i on r e q u i r e m e n t , t h e s t a n d a r d s b e c o m e a rb i t r a r y. 15t he cr i m i nal t r i al , ort o new t es t i m onyordocument s i nt r oduced att he r emoval hear i n g ? T he t as k of def i ni ng t he “t ether ed” i nq uiryw i l l fal l t o futur e pan el s of t his C ou rt , and w i t h the l oss e lem e n t d iv o rc e d f

ro m th e c o n v ictio n re q u ire m e n t, th e tas k w ill notbe an e as yone. T he Fi r s tC i r cui t , t he onl yot hercour tt o have de vi at ed fr om t h e m o di fi ed ca t egor i cal appr oach, s oughtt o pr ovi de ans w er s t o t hes e ques t i ons i n C ont eh , butt hatopi n i on d em o n str ates the an aly ti ca l difficu ltyo f d efi ni ng the los s inq u iry o n c e it is d iv o rc e d f

ro m t h e c o n v ic tio n re q u ir e m e n t. C ont eh m a d e t w o f

u n d a m e n t a l r u l i n g s r e g a r d i n g t h e l o s s i n q u i r y. C ont eh fi r s trul ed, as does th e C o u r tt oday , t hatt he I N A does notr equi r e a c onvi ct ed l os s butr ather m er el y a det er m i nat i on by t he I J , under i t s or di narycl earand convi nci ng evi dence s ta n d a rd , th a t th e lo s s re q u ir e m e n t is sa tis f ie d

. C ont eh , 461 F. 3d at55- 56. T h is rul i ng al l ow ed i tt o concl ude thatt he I J di d not err by r el y i ng on a r es t i tut i on or der , w hi ch coul d have i ncl uded “re leva n t” bu t un -co n v ict ed co n d u ct a n d fa cts fo u n d b ya m ere p re p o n d e ra n c e o f

th e e v id e n c e . Id . a t 5 9

. C ont eh n e x t, h o w e v e r, jo in e d e v e ry C o u rt o f A p p e a ls to h a v e a d d re ss e d th is i s s ue byrul i ng t hatt he i n q u i r yi s l i m i t ed t o t he “r ecor d of convi ct i on. ” I

d. at 57

. In re ac h ing this l att er ru li n g the C o u rt “emphas i ze [d ] t hatt he di ffe r ence betw een [ i t s ] appr oach a nd th a t o f th e N in th C irc u it [ w h ich th e S e c o n d C irc u it su b se q u e n tly j oi ned] i s onl ya mat t erof degr ee, ” id

. at56, and i tagr eed that “bec aus e t he B I A m ay not adj udi cat e gui l t or m et e outcr i m i nal puni s hm ent , i tm us tbas e r emoval or der s on convi ct i ons , noton conductal one. ” Id

. B ase d o n this seco n d ruli n g , the C o u rt con cl ud ed thatt he IJ d id e rr b ylo o k in g to a P S I a n d to 33t es t i m onypr es ent ed i n t he r emoval hear i ng: t he C our tr eas oned that resti tuti o n o rde rs (m em o ri ali ze d in th e fina l j u d g m en t) w ere par tof t he “r ecor d o f convi ct i on, ” butt hatt he othertw o t ypes o f e v id e n c e w e re n o t. I

d. at 57 -59. T he C ou rtal l ow ed recou rs e t o r es t i tut i on or der s by rul i ng, as does t he C our t t oday , t hatt he ali en n ee d n o t h av e be en ac tually co n v ict ed o f a loss; ho w ev er, t he C ou rt rej ect ed the IJ’ s ot her t w o sou rces of ev i den ce bec ause they fe ll o u tsi d e o f th e “ rec o rd o f c o n v ict ion ” a s tha t C o u rt defi ned i t , a l i m i tw hi ch mustder i ve fr om t he convi ct i on req u ir em en t. In o ther w o rds, t h e C o u rtfo u n d th at t h e IN A ’s c o n v i c t i o n r e q u i r e m e n ta p p l i e s t o t h e l o s s i n q u i r yi n s o me r es pect s but does notappl yt o i ti n ot herr es pect s . C er t ai nl yno s uch l i ne appe ar s i n § 1101( a) ( 43) ( M ) ( i )

. I al s o not e that a llo w in g u n q u a lifie d re lian c e u p o n re stitu tio n o rd e rs w o u ld al l ow futur e I J s to loo k t o fac t s a pr i ors ent enci ng cour tm ay h a v e f o u n d b ya m e re p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e a n d to el evat e thos e fa ct s t o t he hi gher“cl earand convi nci ng e vi dence ” s t andar d, w i t houtt he benefi t of havi ng t he under l y i ng evi dence b e f o re it. 34 B eca us e of t he pl ai n l anguage of t he IN A , as w el l as t he p rac ti ca l and fa irn ess c o n ce rns th at I ha v e discu ssed , I am w ary of perm i t t i ng i m m i gr at i on co u rt s t o under t ake de novo fac tual i nqui r i es , undert he “c l earand convi nci ng evi dence ” s t andar d, i nt o fac t s m er el y “r el evant t o, ” or “t ether ed t o, ” an al i en’ s pr i or convi ct i on. I w oul d per m i ti m m i gr at i on court s t o l ook t o the r e c o r d o f c o n v i c t i o n , b u t o n l y t o e s t a b l i s h “ t h a ta pr i or c o n v ictio n ‘n e c e ss a rily ’ in v o lv e d ([ o r] a p rio r p lea n e c e ss a rily35 a d mi t t e d ) f

a c t s e q u a t i n g t o [ t h e g e n e r i c o f f e n s e i n t h e I NA s t atut e]

. ” Sh epa rd , 5 4 4 U

. S

. a t 2 4

. See al s o D ul al

- W

hi t ew ay , 501 F. 3d at12 8 (“w h i l e the i s s ue of s t atut e di vi s i bi l i t yand re lian c e u p o n th e re c o rd o f c o n v ictio n a re th e o re tica lly s epar abl e, i n pr act i ce t hey demand a s i ngl e i nqui r y : has an al i en b e e n a c tu a ll y a n d n e c e ss a rilyc o n v icte d o f a re m o v a b le o f f e n se ? ” ); Li , 389 F. 3d at895- 98. T he “ne cessar i l y ” pl eade d orconvi ct ed r equi r ement expl ai ns and de fin es t he “r ecor d of c o n v ictio n ” in q u iry : o n c e th e c o u rt d e ter m in e s tha t th e sta tu te of convi ct i on pr os cr i bes bot h conduct t hat w oul d cons t i tut e an “a g g rav ated fe lon y ” a n d c o n d u ct t h at w o u ld n o t, the c o u rt cons ul t s t he r ecor d of con vi ct i on t o det er m i ne the type of c o n d u c t th e c o n v ic tio n n e c e s s a ri ly in c lu d e s . D ul al

- W hi t ew ay , 5 0 1 F .3 d a t 1 3 1 ; Li , 389 F. 3d at895- 96.

I n t hi s cas e, loss w as notan el ement of t he cr i m e of c o n v ictio n . T h e c o n sp ira c yc o u n t o f th e in d ictm e n t d id a ss e rt a f ra u d u len t s c h e m e to o b tain “ h u n d re d s o f m ill io n s o f

d o llars ” in l oans fr om m aj orbanks , butt he C our ti n p et i t i oner ’ s cr i m i nal trial in stru c ted th e ju ryth a t itn e e d n o t f in d a n ylo ss in o rd e r to convi ct

. A

. R

. at150, 156, 158. W e thus know t hatdes pi t e the averm ent of t he i nd i ct m ent, t he j ury ’s verdi ctdo es not es t abli sh t hat pet i t i oner w as convi ct ed byi tof cons pi r acyt o comm i tfr aud occa s i oni ng anypar t i cul aramo u n t o f l os s . T he B I A and our C our tacknow l edge a s m uch. A s a r es ul t , t hey poi nt nott o t he i ndi ct m ent and ver di ctt o s uppor tt hei rconcl us i on, butr athert he r e c o r d o f t h e s u b s e q u e n ts e n t e n c i n g p r o c e e d i n g s . S p e c i f i c a l l y, th e yf o c u s a tten tio n o n (1 ) th e se n ten c in g ju d g e ’s o rd e r th a t all d efen dan t s be j oint l yand several l yl i able for r est i tuti on in36 exce s s o f $ 1 0 , 000; and ( 2) t he pet i t i oner ’ s s t i pul at i on w i t h t he gover nm entt hata corr ectappl i cat i on of t he U

. S. S en te nci ng G u id e lin e to p e tit io n e r’s c o n v ictio n s o n C o u n ts 1 (c o n sp ira c yto comm i t fr aud) and 30 ( cons pi r acy t o comm i tm oneyl aunder i ng) pr oduced a bas e offens e l evel of 38, an off ens e l evel i ncl udi ng an enha ncement“[ b ]ec aus e the l os s fr om t he off ens e exc eeds $100, 000, 000. ” A

. R

. at264. N ei t herpor t i on of t he s ent enci ng r ecor d, how ever , es t a b l i s h e s th a tp e t i t i o n erhas been “ convi ct ed” o f c a u s in g a $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 lo s s .

W ith resp ec t to th e sen tenc ing jud g e’s r esti tuti o n o rde r, I agr ee w i t h the S econd and El eventh C i r cui t s t hati tdoes not s uppor ta conc l us i on of r emovabi l i ty

. A s t he D ul al

- W hi t ew ay C our tputi ti n t he cont extof a gui l t ypl ea c as e:

T he r es t i tut i on s etbya j udge i s bas ed on a l os s amount es t abl i s hed bya pr eponder ance of t he e v id e n c e a n d n e e d n o t b e tied to th e f a c ts adm i t t ed b ydefe nd ant’ s pl ea. . . . In ot her w ords, t he amount of t he r es t i tut i on i s not cons t r ai ned by fac t s upon w hi ch the pl ea “ nece s s ar i l y ” r es t ed.

D ul al

- W hi t ew ay , 5 0 1 F. 3 d a t1 3 0

. Se e al s o O b as ohan v. A t t or ney G ener al , 479 F. 3d 785 ( 11t h C i r2007) ( “[W ] hi l e a s ent enci ng cour ti n the cr i m i nal cont extm ayor derr es t i tut i on37 n o t on lyfo r convi ct ed

conductbutal s o for a b roa d r ange of r el evant conduct , t he pl ai n l anguage of t he I N A r equi r es t hatan a l i e n h a ve bee n convi ct ed of an aggr avat ed fe l onyt o be rem o v ab le. ”). I als o ag ree w ith tho se c o u rt s tha t a co n tr ary concl us i on w oul d putone fa ci ng r emoval and l i fet i m e exc l us i on i n a di ffi cul tand unfa i rpos i t i on.

W e n o te t h at i f th e im m igrati o n co u rtw ere author i zed t o bas e a fi ndi ng of an aggra vat ed fel onyon conductand vi ct i m l os s es t hatw er e not char ged, pr oven or admi t t ed, i tw oul d be im p o ss ib le f

o r a c rim in a l d e f

e n d a n t to e v a lu a te t he i m m i gr at i on cons equenc es of a gui l t ypl ea a t t he ti m e of e nter i ng t hat pl ea, becau se t ho se cons equenc es w oul d be know n onl yatt he t i m e of s ent enci ng. W her e l os s amount s ar e cha r ged and p rov en o r ad m itted, ho w ev er . . . n o su ch co n ce rn ari ses.

O bas ohan , 479 at791, n. 12.

F o rmu c h t h e s a me r e a s o n s , I wo u l d r e a c h th e s a me concl us i on w it h r es pectt o t he pr opr i etyof t he B I A cons ul t i ng t he s ent enci ng s t i pul at i on of t he pa rt ies i n t hi s cas e. T he s t i p u l a t i o n wi t h r e s p e c tt o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e Se n t e n c i ngT h e C o u rt s ugges t s t hatnei t herpet i t i oner ’ s s ent enci ng 16 s t i pul at i on nort he s ent enci ng cour t ’ s r es t i tut i on or deri nvol ved co n side rati o n o f re leva n t co n d u ct. It fa il s to ex p lai n , h o w ev er, how i tknow s t hi s t o be t rue. T he s t i pul at i on w as s ol el yfort he p u rpo se of a gui del i ne r egi m e thatr equi r es cons i der at i on of losse s fr o m re leva n t as w ell as c o n v ict ed co n d u ct an d , there b e in g n o lim itatio n to th e late r, th e stip u latio n c lea rly a p p lied to b o th

. See U

. S. S. G

. § 1 B 1. 3, A ppl i cat i on N ot es 1- 2. T he re stitu tio n re g im e , lik e th e G u id e lin e s, a lso a llo w s th e C o u rt to cons i derl os s es fr om r el evantconduct , and nothi ng I have f ound i n t he r ecor d s ugges t s t hat pet i t i oner ’ s s ent enci ng cour tfocus ed on t he di s t i nct i on. 38 G ui del i nes i n t hi s cas e i s nott he equi val ent o f a pl ea orpl ea agr eementadmi t t i ng t o an el ement of t he off ens e of c onvi ct i on. T h is s tip u latio n c a m e b o th a f ter p e tit io n e r’s c o n v ic ti o n a n d in t he cont ext of a s ent enci ng r egi m e t hatr equi r es cons i der at i on of lo ss e s f ro m re lev a n t as w e ll as c o n v icte d c o n d u c t. 16

I t i s t ru e , a s t h e Cou r ts t r e s s e s , t h a tr e t e n t i o n o f t he c o n v icte d c o n d u c t re q u ire m e n t w ill re su lt i n th e B IA b e in g a b le t o r emove few eral i ens on t he gro u n d t hatt heyhave be en convi ct ed of a n aggr avated fel ony . I do notfi nd t hat pr obl emat i c bec aus e thatappea r s consi s t entw i t h t he C o n g ression al i n tent ref lected in 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 2 7 (a)(2)(A )(i ii ). I f t her e i s a probl em, how ever , I w oul d r es er ve i tforl egi s l at i ve corr ect i on. Fur t her m or e, t he modi fi ed ca t egor i cal appr oach does not , as t he C our t s ugges t s , el evat e the governm ent ’ s bur denSi ngh i t s el f m ere l yhel d t hat , w hen appl y i ng a di ffe r ent 17 “aggr avat ed fe l ony ” def i ni t i on, “s exual abuse of a mi nor , ” 8 U

. S. C

. § 1101( a) ( 43) ( A ) , t hi s C our ts houl d fol l ow the st r i ct c a te g o ri c a l a p p ro a c h

. Si ngh , 383 F. 3d at163- 64. 39 of pr oof i n i m m i gr at i on cas es fr om “cl ea rand convi nci ng evi dence” t o “bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt

. ” I tm er el yr equi r es t he governm entt o pr ove, bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence , t hat t he al i en w as actual l y“convi ct ed” o f t he as s er t ed “a ggr avat ed fel ony . ” See O bas ohan v. A t t or ney G ener al , 479 F. 3d 785, 790 ( 11t h C i r . 2007) ( “Ther e w as no bas i s i n t hi s r ecor d fr om w hi ch t he I J coul d have found by‘ cl ear , unequi vocal and convi nci ng’ evi dence t hatt he r es t i tut i on or derw as bas ed on convi ct ed or ad m itted c o n d u ct. ”).

T hi s C our thas neverbefor e found a n al i en deport abl e for conductt he al i en w as nei t herconvi ct ed of nor pl ed gui l t yt o; t he C our t ’ s appr oach, t her efor e, w i l l s i gni fi cant l y expand t he r eac h o f t h e I NA’ s “ a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n y ” p r o v i s i o n s i n t h i s Ci r c u i t

. As t he C our temphasi zes , i n S in g h v . A sh c ro ft , 383 F. 3 d 1 4 4 ( 3d C i r . 2004) , w e r evi ew ed our “aggr avat ed fe l ony ” j ur i s prudence a n d c o n c lu d e d th a t w e h a d f a iled to f

o llo w th e “ f

o rm a l” cat egor i cal appr oach i n t hr ee c as es , all o f w hi ch appl i ed § 1101( a) ( 43) ( M ) ( i )

. T hatpr ovi s i on, t he C our ts t at ed, “begs an 17 adj udi cat or t o exami ne t he fa ct s ati s s ue. ” Id . a t 1 6 1

. Si ngh d id n o t ex p lain p re c ise lyw h ich f a c ts w e re “ a t iss u e .” H o w e v e r, it su g g e ste d a “ f

u rth e r in q u iry ” m u c h lik e th e o n e I w o u ld a d o p t. Si ngh w a s d e c id e d p rio r to th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s o p in io n inSi ngh r ecogni zed thateit h er (1) a s t atut e of c onvi ct i on 18 cont ai ni ng a di s

j unct i ve el ement underw hi ch one pa r tof the

40 Sh epa rd , a n d th e C o u rt re v iew e d o u r p rio r c a se law o n lyto det er m i ne w hen w e had a ppl i ed the “f or m al ” ver s i on of t he cat egor i cal app roac h des cr i bed i n Tayl or . A s t he Si ngh C o u rt e x p la in e d ,

“[u] ndert hatappr oach, an adj udi cat or ‘ m us tl ook onl yt o the s t atut or ydefi ni t i ons of t he pr i or offe ns es,’ and m aynot‘ cons i derot herevi dence c o n c e rn in g th e d e f

e n d a n t ’ s p ri o r c ri m e s ,’ i ncl udi ng, ‘ t he part i cul arfa ct s under l y i ng [a] c o n v ic tio n .”

Si ngh , 383 F. 3d at148 ( quot i ng Tayl or , 495 U

. S. at600)

. T hat “form al ” appr oach is e s s ent i al l yt he fi r s ts t ep of the tw o- s t ep in q u iryo f

th e C o u r ts o f

A p p e a ls f

o r th e S e c o n d a n d N in th C i r cui t s . T he Si ngh C our t concl uded that“a de par tur e fr om t he for m al cat egor i cal appr oach s eems w arr ant ed w hen the t er m s of the [ IN A ’s de fin it ion o f an “a g g rav ated fe lon y ”] inv it e inq u iry i nt o t hef act s under l yi ng the conv i ct i on , ” Si ngh , 383 F. 3d at148 ( emphasi s added) , and t hat § 1101( a) ( 43) ( M ) ( i ) i s s uch a s t atut e. Si ngh di d n o t , h o wev e r , s u g g es t di vor ci ng t he § 1101( a) ( 43) ( M ) ( i ) “qual i fi er ” fr om t he IN A ’ s convi ct i on r equi r ement ent i r el y . T he Su p reme C our toffe r ed fur t her 18d isju n c tiv e w o u ld r e n d e r th e a lien re m o v a b le a n d o n e w o u ld not , a s t atut e i tt er m ed “di vi s i bl e,” o r (2) an el ement of t he

“ g e n e r i c ” d e f

i n i t i o n o f t h e p r i o r o f

f e n s e d e s i g n a t e d b yt h e I NA as an “aggr avat ed fel ony , ” m i ght for ce an IJ t o l ook bey ond t he “form al ” ca t egor i cal appr oach. H ow ever , I do notr ead Si ngh to say t hat t he form er s i tuati on i nv ok es Tayl orand Sh epa rd , w h ile t h e l a t t e r a u t h o r i z e s t h e I J t o u n d e r t a k e a b r o a d f a c tu a l i n q u i r y. Si ngh simpl yr ecogni zed thatbot h ar e i ns t ance s w her e the statu te of

co n v ict ion sw ee p s m o re b roa d ly th a n the IN A ’s defi ni t i on. A s t atute o f convi ct i on cont ai ni ng a di s j unct i ve el ement underw hi ch one pa r tof t he di s j u n ct i ve w oul d r ender t he al i en r emovabl e and one w oul d noti s “di vi s i bl e, ” and sim ilarlya sta tu te o f

c o n v ictio n c o n tain in g n o lo ss e lem e n t is “di vi s i bl e” unde r§ 1 1 0 1( a) ( 43) ( M ) ( i ) i nt o ( 1) convi ct i ons for aggr avat ed fe l oni es w her e t he l os s i s m or e than $10, 000 and ( 2) ot herconvi ct i ons w her e i ti s l es s t han $10, 000. In ei t her i ns t ance , t he nat ur e of t he i nqui r y does not change

. T he Second C i r cui tpr oper l yi nt erpr et ed Si ngh in th is m an n er . D u la lW hi t ew ay , 501 F. 3d at127- 28. 

### She pard h eldth at a g u ilty

p lea co n stitutes a “co nv i c t i o n ,” 19 

### and that a

re viewing court

m ay lookto a “tr ansc ript of

plea co llo quy o r [ th e] w rittenp lea ag reem en t p resen tedto th e co urt, orb y a r e c o r d o f c o m

p ar ab l e f i n d i n g s o f f

a c t a d o p t e d b y

the 41 gui dance on t he ca t egor i cal appr oach i n Sh epa rd , l es s t han a y earaft erw e dec i ded Si ngh

. Sh e pardr eemphas i zed thatt he inq u iryis no t l im it ed to a f o rm a l com p arison o f statuto ry el ement s butr athers houl d focus on i dent i fy i ng t he fa ct s upon w hi ch the pr i orconvi ct i on “nec es s ar i l y ” r es t ed. S ing h ’s 19

### defend ant upo n entering the plea ,” to dete rmine pre ci se ly wh at co n du ct th e d ef

en d an t p ledg u ilty

to

. S h ep a rd, 544 U. S. at

20. I n s o doi ng the Court

r e e m pha s i z e d th at , whe n the c onvi c t i on r e s ul t e d fr omajury

ve r di c t , the Court

i s not l i m i t e d t o a c om par i s on of the s t at

ut ory e l e m e nt s – the “ form a l ” ve r s i on of the c at e g o ri c a la

ppr oa c h upon whi c h Tay lor had largely

fo cuse d

–b u t a l s o m ay

un d ertak e anan alo g o u s in qu iry , lo o k in g to
“ c harg i ng doc um e nt s [] and jury i ns tr uc t i ons t o de t e rm i ne w h eth er anearlie rco nv ictio naf ter trial w as f

o r [ th e g e n e ric en u m erat ed off

ens e]

. ” Sh epa rd 

### , 54 4 U

. S. at 16

. I n e i the r i ns t anc e , the i nqui ry

i s t o de t e rm i ne whethe r the c onvi c t i on “had‘n ec es sari ly ’ r es te do nth e f ac t i d en ti f yin g th e [ p ri o r c ri me] as [the enum er at ed of

fense].” Id . at 2 1

. 42 co n clus ion that § 1 1 0 1 (a) (4 3 )(M )(i ) i n v it es f u rt h er inq u iry b e y o n d th e f

o rm a l ap p ro a c h in o rd e r to d e ter m in e “ th e f a c ts under l y i ng t he convi ct i on” i s ent i r el ycons i s t entw i t h Sh ep a rd ’s admoni t i on t o focus on t he f act s “a pr i orconvi ct i on
‘ nece s s ar i l y ’ i nvol ved. ” Sh epa rd , 54 4 U .S. at24

. A nd , t ho se i nqui r i es ar e es s ent i al l yt he “modi fi ed” or sec o n d s t ep of the cat egor i cal appr oach of t he C our t s of A ppeal s fort he Second a n d N in th C ir c u its

.

O ur opi ni on in Mu n ro e v . A sh c ro ft , 353 F. 3d 225, 227 ( 3d C i r . 2003) , al s o di d notabandon the I N A ’ s con v ict i on req u ire m e n t f

o r t h e § 1 1 0 1 (a)(43 )(M )(i ) l o ss elem en t. In Munr oe , w e mer el yhel d t hatan i m m i gr at i on cour ts houl d not r el yon t he r es t i tut i on or dert o es t abl i s h t he l os s w hen theA l t hough t he Munr oe C our t opi ned t hat , in d i ffe r ent 20 ci r cumst ance s , t he amount of r es t i tut i on or dere d “maybe h e lp f u l” to d e t e r m in e th e lo s s a m o u n t, id

. , I do notfi nd t hat d icta contr ol l i ng i n t hi s cas e. T he C our t ’ s hol di ng w as t hatt he r es t i tut i on or ders houl d nothave be en r el i ed upon i n t hatcas e. I i nt erpr ett he C our t ’ s sta t ement as m er el ydecl i ni ng t o adopt anybr o ad- bas ed rul e r egar di ng r es t i tut i on or der s and i ns t ead l i m i t i ng t he C our t ’ s hol di ng t o t he ( s om ew hatunus ual ) fac t s of 43 convi ct i ng cour t ’ s or i gi nal r es t i tut i on or der h ad been ba s ed on t he convi ct ed l os s , b u tt he courts ubs equent l yr educe d t he r es t i tut i on fr om j us t above, t o j us t bel ow , $10, 000 onl yt o aff ect s u b s e q u e n t d e p o rt a tio n p ro c e e d in g s . Munr oe , 353 F. 3d at227. W e e m p h a siz e d th a t th e a lie n h a d p led g u iltyto tw o c o u n ts in th e in d ictm e n t, ea c h o f

w h ich sp e c if

ied a p r e c ise lo ss a m o u n t, and w e conc l uded:

“ W e a g re e . . . th a t th e a m o u n t o f lo ss in v o lv e d in t hatconvi ct i on w as gr eat er than $10, 000. T he in d ictm e n t alle g e d th a t th e lo ss e x c e e d e d th is amount , and M unr oe does notcl ai m t hat , w hen he pl ed gui l t y , he admi t t ed t o a l es s erl os s . ”

Id

. T hi s hol di ng i s bas ed on a convi ct ed l os s amount ( admi t t ed in th e p lea a g re e m e n t) a n d is th e re f o re e n tirely c o n sis ten t w ith cases s uch as Sh epa rd

and D ul al

- W

hi t ew ay .

20t hatcas e. A s th e C o u rt e m p h a s iz e s , A l aka s i m pl y hel d t hat , i f an a l i en 21 pl eads gui l t y t o one count i n an i ndi ct m ent , he ors he ca nnotbe dep o r t e d f

o r c o n d u c t a l l e g e d i n a d i f f e r e n t , u n p l e d and u n co n v ict ed co u n t o f t h e i n d ict m en t. Id

. at 10 6

. H o w ev er, A laka ’s re a s o n in g s u p p o rt s th e a p p ro a c h I w o u ld a d o p t. 44 O ur o pi ni on i n A l aka v. A t t or ney G ener al , 456 F. 3d 88 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) , i s a l s o c o n s i s t e n twi t h t h i s a p p r o a ch. A l aka 21 s t at ed that“t h e fo r m al cat egor i cal appr oach pr oper l ym aybe abandone d .

. . w hen the t er m s of t he st atut e on w hi ch r emoval i s bas ed i nvi t e i nqui r y int o t he fa ct s of t he under l y i ng convi ct i on, ” i d. , an d tha t( M ) ( i ) “i nvi t es fur t heri nqui r y . ” I d. H o w ev er , m uch l i ke Si ngh , A l aka s t a t e d t h a tt h e “ f u r t h er i nqui r y ” i s t o i dent i fy “the fac t s under l y i ng t he convi ct i on, ” id ., an d t he C our tfur t herexpl ai ned that“[a ] focus on t he conduc t th a t re s u lte d in a c o n v ic tio n is th u s o u r a n a lytic a l s ta rt in g p o in t.” Id . a t 1 0 7 . In d e e d , A l aka expr es s l y rej ect s r el i ance upon “r el evant ” butunconvi ct ed l os s es cal cu lat ed fors ent enci ng purpos es ; t o do s o, t he C our texpl ai ned, “w oul d d i vor ce the $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 lo s s re q u ir e m e n t f r o m th e c o n v ic tio n re q u ir e m e n t . . . beca us e r el evantconductfors ent enci ng purpos es nee d notbe admi t t ed, char ged i n t he i ndi ct m ent or pr oven t o a j ur y . ” Id

. at 1 0 8 (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s a n d c itatio n s o m itt e d ). T h a t is pr eci s el yw hatt he C our t ’ s appr oach does : t he C our tfi nds t hat t he § 1227 convi ct i on r equi r ement appl i es t o t he “f r aud or decei t ” c ompon e ntof

§ 1 10 1( a ) ( 43 ) ( M ) ( i ) , bu ttha tt he l os sA l t hough A l aka di d s t at e thatt he I J coul d cons i derfac tual 22 f in d in g s in th e s e n te n c in g re p o rt , id

. at105, I w oul d notr el yon th a t d icta beca us e t o do s o her e w oul d be contr aryt o A laka ’s c le a r r a tio n a le

. Al aka d o e s n o t exp lai n p rec isel yw h en a c o u rt m ayloo k to f

ac ts fo u n d in a se n tenc ing rep o rt , b u t th e C o u rt ’s hol di ng di d notr el yon anys uch fa ct s : the C our temphasi zed t hat , “as w as t he ca se w i t h Knut s en and C hang , A l aka unm i s t akabl y pl ed gui l t y t o one count , and t he pl ea agr eement pl ai nl y document ed t hatl os s atl es s t han $10, 000. ” A l aka , 456 F. 3d at108. A laka ’s r efe r ence t o t he s ent ence m ayhave be en a r ecogni t i on t hat , for“aggr avat ed fe l oni es ” othert han the one a t i s s ue i n t hi s cas e, t he IN A expr es s l y di r ect s cour t s t o l ook t o t he s ent ence , and t her efor e a pers e rul e thatcour t s can ne verl ook t o fac t s found i n a s ent enci ng r epor t i s cert ai nl ynotappr opr i at e. See Si ngh , 3 8 3 F .3 d a t 1 6 2 (8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 3 )(G ) d ire c ts cour t s t o l ook t o the s ent ence actual l yi m pos ed bec aus e that de fi ni t i on s t a t e s “ 

### a th ef

t o f f en se . . . forw hi ch the t er m of im p riso n m e n t [i m

pos ed i s ] at l eas t one ye ar , ” w h ere as o ther § 1101( a) ( 43) d efi ni t i ons i ncl ude the qual i fi er“forw hi ch a s ent ence of one y eari m p r i s onm entorm or e m ay be i m pos ed ”) (b ra c k e te d te x t in o ri g in a l; e m p h a s is a d d e d ). 45 el ement i s m er el ya “qual i fi er ” nots ubj ectt o t hatconvi ct i on r equi r ement , t hus di vor ci ng t he tw o. 22
B eca us e I w oul d j oi n t hos e C our t s of A p p eal s w hi ch re q u ire th a t re m o v a b ili ty u n d e r § 1 2 2 7 a n d § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 3 )(M )(i) be pr edi cat ed on convi ct ed conduct , and beca us e t he r ecor d does n o t d e m o n stra te th a t p e tit io n e r w a s a c tu a llya n d n e c e ss a rily46 convi ct ed of a nypar t i cul arl os s , I w oul d gr antt he pet i t i on for r e v i e w.