Kawashima v. Holder

Decision Date21 February 2012
Docket NumberNo. 10–577.,10–577.
Citation182 L.Ed.2d 1,565 U.S. 478,132 S.Ct. 1166
Parties Akio KAWASHIMA, et ux., Petitioners v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General.
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Thomas J. Whalen, Washington, DC, for Petitioners.

Curtis E. Gannon, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Edward O.C. Ord, Jenny Lin–Alva, Ord & Norman, San Francisco, CA, Thomas J. Whalen, Counsel of Record, Mark A. Johnston, Nicholas T. Moraites, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioners.

Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Solicitor General, Counsel of Record, Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Curtis E. Gannon, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Donald E. Keener, Bryan S. Beier, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Justice THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case concerns whether aliens who commit certain federal tax crimes are subject to deportation as aliens who have been convicted of an aggravated felony. We hold that violations of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) and (2) are crimes "involv[ing] fraud or deceit" under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43) (M)(i) and are therefore aggravated felonies as that term is defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., when the loss to the Government exceeds $10,000.

I

Petitioners, Akio and Fusako Kawashima, are natives and citizens of Japan who have been lawful permanent residents of the United States since June 21, 1984. In 1997, Mr. Kawashima pleaded guilty to one count of willfully making and subscribing a false tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). Mrs. Kawashima pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2).

Following their convictions, the Immigration and Naturalization Service charged the Kawashimas with being deportable from the United States as aliens who had been convicted of an aggravated felony.1 See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) ("Any alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission is deportable").2 In the Immigration and Nationality Act, Congress listed categories of offenses that qualify as "aggravated felonies" for the purpose of deportation. See § 1101(a)(43). Here, the Government charged the Kawashimas with being deportable for committing offenses under subparagraph (M) of § 1101(a)(43). That subparagraph classifies as an aggravated felony an offense that either: "(i) involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000; or (ii) is described in section 7201 of title 26 (relating to tax evasion) in which the revenue loss to the Government exceeds $10,000." Hereinafter, we refer to § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) as "Clause (i)" and to § 1101(a)(43)(M)(ii) as "Clause (ii)."

At their deportation hearing, the Kawashimas argued that their convictions under 26 U.S.C. § 7206 did not qualify as aggravated felonies under subparagraph (M). The Immigration Judge disagreed and ordered removal, concluding that the Kawashimas' convictions qualified as aggravated felonies under Clause (i). The Kawashimas appealed the removal order to the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board), which affirmed the Immigration Judge's decision. After unsuccessfully petitioning the Board to reopen its decision, the Kawashimas filed petitions for review of the Board's decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit held that "convictions for violating § 7206(1) and (2) in which the tax loss to the Government exceeds $10,000 constitute aggravated felonies under subsection (M)(i)." 615 F.3d 1043, 1053 (2010). The court concluded that Mr. Kawashima's conviction under § 7206(1) qualified as an aggravated felony within Clause (i)'s definition "because it involved ‘fraud or deceit’ and because his offense resulted in a loss to the government in excess of $10,000." Id ., at 1055. The Ninth Circuit also determined that Mrs. Kawashima's conviction under § 7206(2)"necessarily ‘involve[d] fraud or deceit.’ " Id., at 1055. But because Mrs. Kawashima's plea agreement was not in the administrative record, the Ninth Circuit remanded to the Board to determine whether Mrs. Kawashima's conviction had caused a loss to the Government in excess of $10,000. Id., at 1056–1057.

We granted the Kawashimas' petition for a writ of certiorari to determine whether their convictions for violations of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) and (2) respectively qualify as aggravated felonies under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i). 563 U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 2900, 179 L.Ed.2d 1245 (2011). We now affirm.

II

The Kawashimas argue that they cannot be deported for commission of an "aggravated felony" because crimes under § 7206(1) and (2) do not "involv [e] fraud or deceit" as required by Clause (i). The Kawashimas also assert that their convictions under § 7206 are not "aggravated felonies" because tax crimes are not included within Clause (i) at all. We address each argument in turn.

A

The Kawashimas contend that their offenses of conviction do not fall within the scope of Clause (i) because neither "fraud" nor "deceit" is a formal element of a conviction under § 7206(1) or § 7206(2). The Government responds that the Kawashimas' convictions necessarily involved deceit because they required a showing that the Kawashimas willfully made materially false statements. To determine whether the Kawashimas' offenses "involv[e] fraud or deceit" within the meaning of Clause (i), we employ a categorical approach by looking to the statute defining the crime of conviction, rather than to the specific facts underlying the crime. See Gonzales v. Duenas–Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 186, 127 S.Ct. 815, 166 L.Ed.2d 683 (2007) (applying the approach set forth in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 599–600, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990) ). If the elements of the offenses establish that the Kawashimas committed crimes involving fraud or deceit, then the first requirement of Clause (i) is satisfied.3

Mr. Kawashima was convicted of violating 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1), which provides that any person who "[w]illfully makes and subscribes any return, statement, or other document, which contains or is verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, and which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter," shall be guilty of a felony. Mr. Kawashima does not dispute that the elements of a violation of § 7206(1) include, inter alia, that the document in question was false as to a material matter, that the defendant did not believe the document to be true and correct as to every material matter, and that he acted willfully with the specific intent to violate the law. See, e.g., United States v. Aramony, 88 F.3d 1369, 1382 (C.A.4 1996) ; United States v. Kaiser, 893 F.2d 1300, 1305 (C.A.11 1990) ; United States v. Marabelles, 724 F.2d 1374, 1380 (C.A.9 1984) ; United States v. Whyte, 699 F.2d 375, 381 (C.A.7 1983). Although the words "fraud" and "deceit" are absent from the text of § 7206(1) and are not themselves formal elements of the crime, it does not follow that his offense falls outside of Clause (i). The scope of that clause is not limited to offenses that include fraud or deceit as formal elements. Rather, Clause (i) refers more broadly to offenses that " involv[e]" fraud or deceit—meaning offenses with elements that necessarily entail fraudulent or deceitful conduct.

When subparagraph (M) was enacted, the term "deceit" meant a "the act or process of deceiving (as by falsification, concealment, or cheating)." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 584 (1993). Mr. Kawashima's conviction under § 7206(1) establishes that he knowingly and willfully submitted a tax return that was false as to a material matter. He therefore committed a felony that involved "deceit."

Turning to Mrs. Kawashima, our analysis follows a similar path. Mrs. Kawashima was convicted of violating 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2), which declares that any person who "[w]illfully aids or assists in ... the preparation or presentation under, or in connection with any matter arising under, the internal revenue laws, of a return, affidavit, claim, or other document, which is fraudulent or is false as to any material matter," has committed a felony. Mrs. Kawashima does not dispute that the elements of a violation of § 7206(2) include, inter alia, that the document in question was false as to a material matter and that the defendant acted willfully. See Aramony, supra, at 1382; United States v. Sassak, 881 F.2d 276, 278 (C.A.6 1989) ; United States v. Hooks, 848 F.2d 785, 788–789 (C.A.7 1988) ; United States v. Dahlstrom, 713 F.2d 1423, 1426–1427 (C.A.9 1983). We conclude that Mrs. Kawashima's conviction establishes that, by knowingly and willfully assisting her husband's filing of a materially false tax return, Mrs. Kawashima also committed a felony that involved "deceit."

The language of Clause (i) is clear. Anyone who is convicted of an offense that "involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000" has committed an aggravated felony and is subject to deportation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). The elements of willfully making and subscribing a false corporate tax return , in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1), and of aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2), establish that those crimes are deportable offenses because they necessarily entail deceit.

B

The Kawashimas' second argument is based on inferences drawn from the interaction of Clause (i) and Clause (ii). The full text of subparagraph (M) reads as follows:

"(43) The term ‘aggravated felony’ means—
. . . . .
"(M) an offense that—
"(i) involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000; or
"(ii) is described in section 7201 of title 26 (relating to tax evasion) in which the revenue loss to the Government
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
86 cases
  • United States v. Ruth, No. 20-1034
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • July 20, 2020
    ...elements "necessarily entail fraudulent or deceitful conduct " as the appropriate measure. Id . (quoting Kawashima v. Holder , 565 U.S. 478, 483–85, 132 S.Ct. 1166, 182 L.Ed.2d 1 (2012) ). We will call this second method the conduct-based method.In Shular , the Court held that the second ca......
  • Silva v. Garland
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • February 28, 2022
    ...facts underlying the crime.’ " Esquivel-Quintana, 137 S. Ct. at 1567-68 (ellipsis in original) (quoting Kawashima v. Holder, 565 U.S. 478, 483, 132 S.Ct. 1166, 182 L.Ed.2d 1 (2012) ); see also De Lima v. Sessions, 867 F.3d 260, 262-63 (1st Cir. 2017). "Under that approach, we ask whether ‘t......
  • United States v. Fields
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • August 10, 2022
    ..."involving" more narrowly. The most significant example is the Supreme Court's decision in Kawashima v. Holder , 565 U.S. 478, 481, 484-85, 132 S.Ct. 1166, 182 L.Ed.2d 1 (2012). Applying the categorical approach, Kawashima held that an immigration statute providing for removal upon commissi......
  • United States v. Fields
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • November 23, 2022
    ..."involving" more narrowly. The most significant example is the Supreme Court's decision in Kawashima v. Holder , 565 U.S. 478, 481, 484-85, 132 S.Ct. 1166, 182 L.Ed.2d 1 (2012). Applying the categorical approach, Kawashima held that an immigration statute providing for removal upon commissi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • TAX VIOLATIONS
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 58-3, July 2021
    • July 1, 2021
    ...of a tax as well as the offense of willfully attempting to evade or defeat the payment of a tax.’” (quoting Kawashima v. Holder, 565 U.S. 478, 488 (2012))). 66. I.R.C. § 7201; see United States v. Hesser, 800 F.3d 1310, 1323 (11th Cir. 2015) (listing elements for violation). 67. See, e.g., ......
  • Tax Violations
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 60-3, July 2023
    • July 1, 2023
    ...tolling of statute of limitations during appeal from summons enforcement proceedings). 66. 18 U.S.C. § 3292. 67. Kawashima v. Holder, 565 U.S. 478, 488 (2012); see United States v. Mal, 942 F.2d 682, 687–88 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining that preventing the IRS from determining true tax liabil......
  • Tax Violations
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 59-3, July 2022
    • July 1, 2022
    ...all criminal tax offenses and that the application of that statute may result in a higher penalty. 69. I.R.C. § 7201; Kawashima v. Holder, 565 U.S. 478, 488 (2012) (quoting Sansone v. United States, 380 U.S. 343, 354 (1965)); see United States v. Mal, 942 F.2d 682, 687–88 (9th Cir. 1991) (e......
  • Deportation Arrest Warrants.
    • United States
    • February 1, 2021
    ...shift in the sovereign status of states that occurred after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution). (182.) See Kawashima v. Holder, 565 U.S. 478, 481 n.2 (2012) (explaining that "[b]efore 1996, there were two procedures for removing aliens from the country: 'deportation' of aliens who w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT